On 15/09/2014 09:53, Adrian wrote:
My theory is that his ideal is a very narrow No. Close enough that he can
use it as a stick to beat his preferred DevoMax out of Westminster, but
still a definite No, so that he doesn't have to actually deal with the
difficult and expensive reality of setting up all the machinery of a
country from scratch.

Sort of: Oh, No! It's Devo

--
Rod

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And they thought they were voting for a socialist government which might
just reverse some of the appalling damage Thatcher did to Scottish
industries. Instead they got Blair.

No, these industries did it to themselves, as obsolete, loss-making
industries always do. Helped by mule-headed unions and most likely,
too, by poor management.

And the windfall of North Sea oil should have been used to modernise them.
Called investing for the future. But the 'financial services' lot just
wanted to make a fast buck. Later causing the biggest depression in living
memory.

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/09/14 16:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/09/14 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Reentrant wrote:

Will the Scots will have an identifiable range of IP addresses?

No country has an identifiable range of addresses. Addresses are dished
out by regional registries, RIPE in Europe's case. And they are dished
out to any entity that makes a proper case for needing them. And you
can then look up in the RIPE database to determine that such-and-such
an IP address was issued as part of a block, to BT, f'rinstance, or
Virgin Media.

Trouble is that in the early days when 32 bits was thought to be plenty
for an address, whole 24-bit (16 million addresses) long ranges were
issued to the likes of Apple, IBM, HP, you name it. That was before the
registries were properly established. There are plenty of blocks where
no one quite knows who's using them.

Not true if they are ON the internet.

Pretty easy to trace who they end up with.

That's assuming somebody's border router hasn't disabled the TTL
exceeded ICMP reply.

well even so, stuff beyond may actually return echos, and at some level,
BGP tables are pretty comprehensive and dumpable


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 17:10, Richard wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

On 15/09/14 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

And since your MP is under a party Whip, he usually wont stray far off
whatever the party king and his chums tell him. If he wants to keep
his seat.

Is why the Tories are moving towards open primaries for Westminster
candidate selection - although that is expensive.


No it isn't.

Once selected he will still be whipped.

Major industrial sponsors aren't going to sponsor a party that cant
whip through a bill that makes profits for them.

And without them, who will pay someone to write the spin that gets
them elected?

The business of government is a machine to remove wealth from
individuals and concentrate it in the pockets of those in government
and those who sponsored them.

If you don't like it, vote UKIP

So, exactly how will that change "The business of government ..."?

Because UKIP have very few commercial sponsors and are mostly people who
have recently had real jobs in the real world: They aren't there to
trough, but to cut government down to size.

Once they have been in ten years of course, they too will be career
politicians, but there is a window of opportunity.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Tim Streater wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
News wrote

This is Wee Eck's big moment. This is his moment to go down
in history as the man who led Scotland to independence. He
will not, cannot, let a Yes vote fail.

I don't think he actually WANTS a Yes. Not really.

My theory is that his ideal is a very narrow No. Close enough that he
can use it as a stick to beat his preferred DevoMax out of Westminster,
but still a definite No, so that he doesn't have to actually deal with
the difficult and expensive reality of setting up all the machinery of
a country from scratch.

I wonder if Westminster politicians will have learnt anything from
all this? Which I'd say is that the policies of all recent governments
allowing the gap between the richest and poorest to widen dramatically -
and the gap between the richest and average to widen dramatically too -
isn't actually what the majority of the population benefit from.

Why are you so fixated by this "gap"? I'd have thought that
the absolute wealth level of the poorest is what counts.

More the real standard of living of the poorest IMO.

But even that is complicated, what do you do about
the worst of the wino bums and stupid druggys that
put anything they can get their hands on up their
noses, into their arterys or into their mouths ?

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 15/09/2014 09:53, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:40:43 +0100, News wrote:

This is Wee Eck's big moment. This is his moment to go down in history
as the man who led Scotland to independence. He will not, cannot, let a
Yes vote fail.

I don't think he actually WANTS a Yes. Not really.

My theory is that his ideal is a very narrow No. Close enough that he can
use it as a stick to beat his preferred DevoMax out of Westminster, but
still a definite No, so that he doesn't have to actually deal with the
difficult and expensive reality of setting up all the machinery of a
country from scratch.

Haven't the Gibberment already promised DevoMax anyway if the answer's No
way, Jimmy?

Nope, no promise like that, even if it is very likely.

Andrew wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ian Jackson wrote

Most of the fervent YES supporters seem convinced that total
independence will mean a land of milk and honey

That is essentially what Norway got.

Norway started as a very poor,

That isnt very accurate.

rural backwater

Yes. But it wasn't like that in the viking era.

with none of the overstaffed, worn out relics of the UKs industrial
revolution that made the world what it is today !. They started with a
clean sheet of paper,

No they did not.

but in 50 years time they will regret not looking at what has happened to
Luton and Bradford before they embarked on a typically-socialist open
doors immigration policies.

We'll see...

Not everywhere that went to a open door immigration
policy ended up with anything like Luton or Bradford.

In 1990 I travelled around NZ and met up with a couple of Norwegian SAS
employees, one an air-hostess, the other back-office. The latter lady
remembers as a young child her parents were too poor to buy shoes for her.
Suddenly this country of 3 million people inherited a vast fortune.

And so has Scotland.

Meanwhile across the North Sea we had 58 million people, a massive,
historic armed forces, huge state-run industries making vast losses every
year. Millions of under and unemployed souls. Tens of millions of days
lost to strikes every year. North Sea oil and a change of government gave
the UK a one-off chance to sort out the problems of post-empire
de-industrialisation.

One of those casualties was the Scottish rust belt. Many people think Mrs
T was responsible for that, but who could blame her ?.

There is no evidence that Maggy was personally responsible
for any of that. The most you can claim for any politician is
that they were certainly responsible for what happened at the
start of WW1 and WW2 and the immigration policy, but that
other stuff is WAY outside what any politician gets any say on.

Scotland, like Wales and the North of England was where all her political
enemies reside. Why would she help these people ?.

She didn't help anyone except arguably by forcing councils
to sell council houses etc to the current tenants etc.

And in any case it was world econonomics, a glut of steel and coal, and
the Common MArket Coal and Steel policies that made the heavy industries
contract.

Yep, nothing to do with any politician. The most they ever
get to do is react to stuff like that, they never drive it.

Even if Mrs T had never won in 1979, ed Milipedes 2008 Climate change act
would have shut them all down - just look at Didcot power station as an
example.

Sure.

And it was Glasgow city council who, in the 70's and 80's demolished vast
areas of the city centre in favout of a series of concrete soviet-style
tower blocks at ?Easterhouse.

Yes, that sort of thing certainly is done by politicians.

And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

But to get back to the original, Scotland could well end up as a land of
milk and honey due to north sea oil and gas alone, just like Norway has.
In a way that even the worst of the pollys like Salmon couldn't **** up.

On 15/09/14 17:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/09/14 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

And since your MP is under a party Whip, he usually wont stray far off
whatever the party king and his chums tell him. If he wants to keep
his seat.

Is why the Tories are moving towards open primaries for Westminster
candidate selection - although that is expensive.

No it isn't.

Once selected he will still be whipped.

You actually mean "once elected".

Nope. I mean once selected. Once you are a candidate, you toe the party
line.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 17:29, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:41:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you don't like it, vote UKIP

Mmm. Vote for a party that can't even publish a manifesto before the
biggest election of their existence, and who seem to insert a foot firmly
into a mouth every time roughly 3/4 of their elected representatives
utter anything...

I fail to understand how you can have missed tjeir manifesto

And as for teh other point, well you can say that. It isn't true of
course, but you can say it.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/2014 14:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


And the referendum on independence is democratic too - with likely a far
higher turn out than the usual general election.


Some democracy! where the majority of people affected don't get any say.

On 15/09/14 17:35, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:44:07 +0100, News
wrote:

I neither like nor support him,

Ditto.

but cannot help admire his tenacity.

Contraywise; I utterly despise the man. He's playing wooly-headed
fools like cheap fiddles, appealing to the mawkish sentimentalism that
resides in many breasts, playing them for all he's worth in his
personal pursuit of power.
He's a very good politician, but one who realised early on in his
political life he had no chance in the shark-infested pool of true
National Government, so decided to create a national platform of his
own that he could strut around on, and blare his hideous propaganda
from.

He is classic Labour: appeals to the worst side of people, makes
impossible promises and lies his buttocks off.

And holds his electorate in utter contempt.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 18:06, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:59:00 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK

Umm, Blair represented a constituency in England.

But he was born in Edinburgh.

shrug
Cliff Richard was born in India. Does that make him Indian?

No, sadly. Otherwise we could deport him.

But that's beside the point. Nobody registered to vote in any Scottish
constituency was ever offered an opportunity to vote for or against Tony
Blair in any Parliamentary election. Only people living in part of Co.
Durham ever did that, so they're the only ones who "inflicted" him on the
UK.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 18:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And they thought they were voting for a socialist government which might
just reverse some of the appalling damage Thatcher did to Scottish
industries

Oh god, the record is stuck in its groove again.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/2014 13:59, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 19:51:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Presumably BBC Scotland will become the pravda of the north, and be spun
out and charged to willing taxpayers to broadcast an unending stream of
hatred and vilification of the English, who will be blamed for every
cockup Salmond makes far far longer than he has blamed Margaret Thatcher..

Sadly, I suspect that will be the case.


The socialists will still blame Maggie.
This despite the union demands for more pay and sod everyone else that
had been going on for years before maggie was elected.
She didn't create the greed she inherited it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/09/14 14:17, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:11:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

That's not how democracy works, either.

Feel free to expand and explain...

Democracy as you understand it, doesn't work.

Democracy, as I understand, it does, and it means little more than if you
can get 52% or sometimes less of the people to support you, you can have a
bloodless coup and be king for 5 years


The rest is just window dressing. Since your parliamentary constituency
has no authority whatsoever, it has no executive powers at all.

At best your voice might be carried to Westminster, but in the absence of
hard cash or a looming election, it will be politely ignored.

And since your MP is under a party Whip, he usually wont stray far off
whatever the party king and his chums tell him. If he wants to keep his
seat.

Real democracy consists in where yu spend your money and how you choose to
live your life.

Which is why the current governments have been ensuring that they take all
your money for 'worthy causes'

They dont take anything like all of my money.

and tell you exactly how to live.

And I make an obscene gesture in their general direction
and live exactly how I choose to live and they get to like
that or lump it.

harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Andrew wrote

And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by
a government they didn't vote for either.

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK

Yes.

resulting in total destruction of the economy and society.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

it's socialism that destroyed Scotland,

The world changed, they got left behind, just like england did too.

not the English.

You did get that right, presumably by accident.

Adrian wrote
harryagain wrote

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK

Umm, Blair represented a constituency in England.

Irrelevant to what got his govt into power.

harryagain wrote
Adrian wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

That's not how democracy works, either.

Feel free to expand and explain...

They have real democracy in Switzerland

No they don’t, they just have more of a democracy than britain does.

And what works in a tiny little pimple on the bum of the world
country won't necessarily work in a more significant country anyway.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't
vote for either.


It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK resulting in total
destruction of the economy and society.
it's socialism that destroyed Scotland, not the English.

And they thought they were voting for a socialist government which might
just reverse some of the appalling damage Thatcher did to Scottish
industries.

Thatcher didn’t do it, the way the economy was changing did.

Instead they got Blair.

So next time they voted SNP.

And will eventually get independence, you watch.

"mcp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:39:11 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK resulting in total
destruction of the economy and society.
it's socialism that destroyed Scotland, not the English.

It was the English who voted the Labour party in to power.

That is very arguable indeed.

On 15/09/2014 16:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/09/14 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

And since your MP is under a party Whip, he usually wont stray far off
whatever the party king and his chums tell him. If he wants to keep
his seat.

Is why the Tories are moving towards open primaries for Westminster
candidate selection - although that is expensive.


No it isn't.

Once selected he will still be whipped.

Major industrial sponsors aren't going to sponsor a party that cant whip
through a bill that makes profits for them.

And without them, who will pay someone to write the spin that gets them
elected?

The business of government is a machine to remove wealth from
individuals and concentrate it in the pockets of those in government and
those who sponsored them.

If you don't like it, vote UKIP



Why would that bunch be any different.
They all have grand schemes that they can't do once they are elected.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

And they thought they were voting for a socialist government
which might just reverse some of the appalling damage
Thatcher did to Scottish industries. Instead they got Blair.

No, these industries did it to themselves, as obsolete,
loss-making industries always do. Helped by mule-headed
unions and most likely, too, by poor management.

And the windfall of North Sea oil should have been used to modernise them.

That would have been pouring that money down a rat hole.

Called investing for the future.

Called pouring that money down a rat hole.

None of those industrys were ever going to be viable again.

The oil and gas industry is tho.

But the 'financial services' lot just wanted to make a fast buck.

Sure, but those dead industrys were never going to be viable again.

Later causing the biggest depression in living memory.

That's overstated, there are still some around
that lived thru the much worse one that that.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:02:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

He is classic Labour: appeals to the worst side of people, makes
impossible promises and lies his buttocks off.

Classic political animal of any stripe.

And holds his electorate in utter contempt.

Yep.
I seriously hope his arse gets well and truly kicked.
If not, hell mend the idiots who were swayed by his ****e.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And they thought they were voting for a socialist government which
might
just reverse some of the appalling damage Thatcher did to Scottish
industries. Instead they got Blair.

No, these industries did it to themselves, as obsolete, loss-making
industries always do. Helped by mule-headed unions and most likely,
too, by poor management.

And the windfall of North Sea oil should have been used to modernise
them.

How do you do that with yo-yos on both sides of the table?

And even if you did, it would just be pouring that money down a rat hole.

Those industrys were never going to be viable there again.

The oil and gas industry was tho.

Reentrant wrote



Will the Scots will have an identifiable range of IP addresses?


The ISPs will be splitting their companies for accounting purposes, so
those IPs used in Jockland will be easily identified.

Jocks living in border areas will be able to steal BBC programmes from
transmitters in England. I can't the BBC detector vans getting across
the border.

News wrote


In message , Michael Chare
writes

I do wonder whether they will conclude that full independence is not
worth the cost and the effort when they start making plans.

I tend to think that, in the event of a Yes vote, Salmond will not let
independence fail. Money will be thrown at whatever problems arise for
a good few years, even if doing so means passing mountainous debts to
generations as yet unborn.

This is Wee Eck's big moment. This is his moment to go down in history
as the man who led Scotland to independence. He will not, cannot, let a
Yes vote fail.


The silly little ****er will be going full circle back to the Darien
Scheme

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...Darien-Scheme/

"Scotland had paid a terrible price with more than two thousand lives
lost. Together with the loss of the £500,000 investment the Scottish
economy was almost bankrupted. It has been argued that the Darien Scheme
crippled the country's economy to such an extent that it triggered the
dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and led to the 1707 Act of Union
with England."

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No, these industries did it to themselves, as obsolete, loss-making
industries always do. Helped by mule-headed unions and most likely,
too, by poor management.

And the windfall of North Sea oil should have been used to modernise
them.

How do you do that with yo-yos on both sides of the table?

Other industries in the UK - and other countries - managed it.

But it suits so many to just blame it on the workforce - both blue and
white collar.

Plenty of foreign owned companies see to be able to get on with their
workforce and their unions these days. That should tell you something.

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/09/14 18:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And they thought they were voting for a socialist government which
might just reverse some of the appalling damage Thatcher did to
Scottish industries

Oh god, the record is stuck in its groove again.

Better than having your head stuck in the sand.

But then you never did have any understanding of cause and effect.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And the windfall of North Sea oil should have been used to modernise them.

That would have been pouring that money down a rat hole.

Called investing for the future.

Called pouring that money down a rat hole.

None of those industrys were ever going to be viable again.

Engineering? Strange. The most successful country in Europe is based
around that.

The oil and gas industry is tho.

For the multinationals who run it, yes.

But the 'financial services' lot just wanted to make a fast buck.

Sure, but those dead industrys were never going to be viable again.

There will always be a demand for manufactured goods.

Later causing the biggest depression in living memory.

That's overstated, there are still some around
that lived thru the much worse one that that.

Debatable.

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No, these industries did it to themselves, as obsolete, loss-making
industries always do. Helped by mule-headed unions and most likely,
too, by poor management.

And the windfall of North Sea oil should have been used to modernise
them.

How do you do that with yo-yos on both sides of the table?

Other industries in the UK - and other countries - managed it.

Not the ones that died in the arse in Scotland.

But it suits so many to just blame it on the
workforce - both blue and white collar.

Its suits many to claim that all you have to do is pour money
into something and it can be fixed. It can't with an industry
that is dying in the arse for very fundamental reasons.

Plenty of foreign owned companies see to be able to get on with their
workforce and their unions these days. That should tell you something.

That what is possible with some isnt necessarily possible with others.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And the windfall of North Sea oil should have been used to modernise
them.

That would have been pouring that money down a rat hole.

Called investing for the future.

Called pouring that money down a rat hole.

None of those industrys were ever going to be viable again.

Engineering?

It wasn’t engineering in general that died in the
arse there, as the oil and gas industry there shows.

Strange. The most successful country
in Europe is based around that.

Yes, the can still do cars too, Scotland can't
no matter how much had been poured into
that now defunct scottish industry. Scotland
just isnt big enough to do what Germany
does with cars and doesn’t have the associated
industrys that are necessary for that either.

The oil and gas industry is tho.

For the multinationals who run it, yes.

Just as true of the industrys that were never going
to survive, no matter how much money from the
oil and gas was poured into them stupidly.

But the 'financial services' lot just wanted to make a fast buck.

Sure, but those dead industrys were never going to be viable again.

There will always be a demand for manufactured goods.

Yes, but once China got a clue and noticed that communism
was never going to fly and decided to take advantage of their
MUCH lower labor costs, manufacturing goods in Scotland
was never going to fly again, no matter how much of the oil
and gas revenue had been poured into those factorys.

Yes, manufacturing was very viable in Britain for a very long
time after the Industrial Revolution was invented, but once
that had spread out to the rest of the world and places like
China had decided to get into manufacturing goods, that
was the time when Scottish manufacturing had passed its
useby date and there was no way that pouring any of the
oil and gas money into that would make any difference
to that.

Yes, there are still some specialist areas which are still
viable, but they are tiny niche markets, nothing like the
old manufacturing operations that have gone forever now.

Later causing the biggest depression in living memory.

That's overstated, there are still some around
that lived thru the much worse one that that.

Debatable.

Nope, on the social security safetynet alone.

Its even arguable whether the current heroin
trade etc is actually any worse than the previous
problem alcohol abuse seen in the great depression.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:54:53 +0100 Jabba wrote :
Jocks living in border areas will be able to steal BBC programmes from
transmitters in England. I can't the BBC detector vans getting across
the border.

Which presumably happens now in the parts of Eire next to NI?

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Rod Speed wrote


Tim Streater wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
News wrote

This is Wee Eck's big moment. This is his moment to go down
in history as the man who led Scotland to independence. He
will not, cannot, let a Yes vote fail.

I don't think he actually WANTS a Yes. Not really.

My theory is that his ideal is a very narrow No. Close enough that he
can use it as a stick to beat his preferred DevoMax out of Westminster,
but still a definite No, so that he doesn't have to actually deal with
the difficult and expensive reality of setting up all the machinery of
a country from scratch.

I wonder if Westminster politicians will have learnt anything from
all this? Which I'd say is that the policies of all recent governments
allowing the gap between the richest and poorest to widen dramatically -
and the gap between the richest and average to widen dramatically too -
isn't actually what the majority of the population benefit from.

Why are you so fixated by this "gap"? I'd have thought that
the absolute wealth level of the poorest is what counts.

More the real standard of living of the poorest IMO.

But even that is complicated, what do you do about
the worst of the wino bums and stupid druggys that
put anything they can get their hands on up their
noses, into their arterys or into their mouths ?


Put them in the House of Lords, like they've always done.

On 16/09/14 01:25, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:54:53 +0100 Jabba wrote :
Jocks living in border areas will be able to steal BBC programmes from
transmitters in England. I can't the BBC detector vans getting across
the border.

Which presumably happens now in the parts of Eire next to NI?

Heck you can do MUCH better than that...Tuscany., sky dish, UK address
on the descrambler card..full UK TV service ;-)

ISTR that that person kept UK registration on their untaxed un MOTed
uninsured vehicle for 17 years. I think he's dead now. No email in 4 yrs


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:25:19 +1000, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:54:53 +0100 Jabba wrote :
Jocks living in border areas will be able to steal BBC programmes from
transmitters in England. I can't the BBC detector vans getting across
the border.

Which presumably happens now in the parts of Eire next to NI?

Freesat and Skyfreesat take care of that.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:01:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you don't like it, vote UKIP

Mmm. Vote for a party that can't even publish a manifesto before the
biggest election of their existence, and who seem to insert a foot
firmly into a mouth every time roughly 3/4 of their elected
representatives utter anything...

I fail to understand how you can have missed tjeir manifesto

Simple. Because they didn't publish one. The last manifesto they
published was for the 2010 general election, and Farridge has disowned
that as "drivel".

They're threatening to publish one for the 2015 general election, but I'm
not exactly holding my breath. It'd require a full range of reasoned and
costed policies, and we all know THAT ain't going to happen.

And as for teh other point, well you can say that. It isn't true of
course, but you can say it.

So Farridge has never, ever felt the need to distance himself from the
utterance of some councillor or other?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:03:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK

Umm, Blair represented a constituency in England.

But he was born in Edinburgh.

shrug
Cliff Richard was born in India. Does that make him Indian?

No, sadly. Otherwise we could deport him.

You really do have a very loose grasp on reality, don't you?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:37:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And they thought they were voting for a socialist government which might
just reverse some of the appalling damage Thatcher did to Scottish
industries. Instead they got Blair.

Blair was always very clear that he wasn't a socialist. That was how he
got elected in the first place.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:42:59 +0100, mcp wrote:

It was the English who voted the Labour party in to power.

It was the whole country, not any particular region.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:14:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Because UKIP have very few commercial sponsors

Without Paul Sykes, they'd be _****ed_.

They aren't there to trough, but to cut government down to size.

wipes tear of laughter away
Not only are they the worst for diving into the "Brussels Gravy Train"
the profess to despise, but they do least to actually justify it.