Guided Missile

Toughest two letters I've ever typed....

Back to the Future -2314 The Salmond scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a independent nation by leaving the United Kingdom and establishing a currency, (the groat), initially based on an economy dominated by oil production. The Scottish Parliament, playing on the nationalist nostaligia prevelant at the time, used excessive public spending to gain support for their plans for independence and shortly after separating from the UK and with oil production in the North Sea subsequently collapsing, raised £20 billion in loans (£10.5 trillion in 2314 money) to build wind farms in an attempt to replace the loss of oil revenue. The removal of subsidies for wind power and the advent of cheap nuclear power from England and subsequently even cheaper power from nuclear fusion reactors based in Cumbria, meant that the wind farms never provided enough income to repay the loans and Scotland was forced to default on these loans, many from English institutions. The subsequent collapse of the groat, hyperinflation and food shortages throughout Scotland led to a revolt and a removal of the President of the Scottish parliament, Alex Salmond II, who was subsequently tried for treason, and executed in Edinburgh. The failure of the Salmond scheme left many Scottish businesses completely ruined and was an important factor in weakening their resistance to the Act of Reunion (established in 2054). Although the scheme failed, it has been seen as marking the beginning of the country's transformation into a nation, oriented towards modern business, based on technology and international co-operation, when many Scottish, educated by the state and who had deserted Scotland during the Salmond rule, returned home.

The problem with the so called "Devolution Max", is that the SNP are proposing they cut Corporation Tax, whilst retaining sterling. The Bank of England will be in charge of their borrowing costs, so they only have to see what has happened to the countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal, to see where that road leads. Without fiscal independence, they will have no effective control over borrowing costs. Citigroup has already warned their clients not to invest in Scotland, in case they gain independence, which is hardly a ringing endorsement for a future Scottish currency. They're on the road to ruin and not for the first time. Like the Irish, they'll be back to us for a bail out, just as they were in the 17th century, which forced them into the Act of Union. (see the Darien scheme)

Here's a laugh out loud post from the past, that will keep the comedy gold that this thread has become, alive:

This is a good read: Alex Salmond is just poking the English to try and force the English to give them independence. An opinion poll showed just 29 per cent of Scottish voters want full independence.The same poll which revealed just 29 per cent of Scots are in favour of independence found that a much higher proportion — 41 per cent — of English voters are in favour of the Scots going their own way.And tuition fees are not the only battleground on which Salmond is trying to alienate the Auld Enemy. He has furnished the Scots with free personal care at home for the over-65s, free prescriptions, free hospital parking, and free school meals for five to seven-year-olds. Essentially, any public service which English taxpayers resent having to pay for, Alex Salmond will ensure becomes free for Scots. The message for English voters is: Granny McTavish is living it up at your expense. The great irony is that under EU law, Scottish universities are not allowed to discriminate against members of other EU states. Were Miss Watts a Belgian, a Pole or a Greek, she would be entitled to free education at a Scottish university. But English? Forget it.The Scottish government insists that this does not constitute discrimination because the EU rules apply only to members of other EU states; they do not demand that citizens of the same member state be treated equally.As for Scottish students studying in England — they do have to pay fees, but the state loans available to them are much more generous than those available to English students.Perhaps we should not be so surprised, then, to read that the large gap in public spending between Scotland and England has widened by 15 per cent in the past year alone.State spending north of the border averaged £10,212 per head last year, some £1,624 per person higher than in England — a fact that will put pressure on ministers to review the controversial funding formula which has been in place for more than 30 years. Since 1978, public services have been funded according to the Barnett Formula, devised by Joel Barnett, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Jim Callaghan's government. It stated that for every £1 spent on public services in Britain, 85p is spent in England, 10p in Scotland and 5p in Wales.It was a crude formula — based on the relative size of the three countries' populations — which even Lord Barnett now admits should have been shelved years ago.It was devised — according to him, on the back of an envelope — as a temporary measure at a time when the Labour government was trying to head off a growing clamour for Scottish independence. If it was biased in favour of the Scots in 1978 — since their population was slightly less than 10 per cent, while England's was slightly more than 85 per cent — it is even more so now. The population of England has grown to more than 86 per cent of Britain's total, while the population of Scotland has fallen to only 8.6 per cent.That's why every person in Scotland receives more than £1,600 per head more in public services a year than do those in England. If the public funding were to be altered to match the populations today, Scotland would lose 14 per cent. Yet even with the Barnett formula helping to prop up Scottish finances, the SNP's spending is reckless. Three years ago, Audit Scotland — the Scottish equivalent of the National Audit Office — published a report revealing that there was an annual shortfall of £63million in the funding of free care for the elderly, and that the policy would become less affordable as the population aged.Yet still the Scottish government persists with a policy that is guaranteed eventually to break the bank. The weakness of Salmond's strategy, of course, is that were he to achieve his ambition and Scotland were to become an independent nation, it would lose the subsidy it receives from English taxpayers.Maybe he is hoping that English money could be replaced by EU development funds. (What a delicious irony it would be if Scotland becoming independent meant that under EU rules students from England would no longer have to pay fees to study there.) Salmond certainly cannot rely on oil revenues to keep the Scottish economy afloat. Ever since the Seventies, the SNP has argued that an independent Scotland would gain more by retaining all its oil revenues than it would lose in subsidies from the English.Given that around 90 per cent of North Sea oil production lies in what might become after independence Scotland's sector of the North Sea, that may at one time have been true. But North Sea oil production is in steep decline, being only half what it was at its peak in 1999. In 2009, a Scottish government report claimed that, were it allowed to keep all its oil revenues, an independent Scotland would have an annual surplus of £1.3 billion. But the report excluded spending on schools, hospitals and roads. If oil revenues dwindled to nothing, Scotland would plunge into a deficit of £15.5 billion, an impossible burden for a country of only five million people.

We are in a position of heads we win, tails they lose, because if the SNP lose the referendum, then the SNP are finished as a political force. If they win the referendum, the English economy is the main beneficiary, with respect to greatly reduced public subsidies north of the border. If I was Cameron, I would try and convince Salmond to take the North of England with him as well. Anything north of Watford and we would still have a feasible business model for the England left over. Think of it. Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle in the SPL. It might be worth watching and Saints would have a chance to win the Premiership!

I and the population of Scotland, obviously doubt that they could survive, or the SNP would welcome an early vote. I think you need to offset your figures with the obsene level of public spending by the Scots and the level that is being subsidised by the English taxpayer. Public spending in England is £7,535 per person, while in Scotland it is £9,179. Since the Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, public spending has outstripped tax generated there by 45 per cent. While Scots get free care for the elderly and deferred tuition fees, the English have to pay. In addition, Scotland's two flagship banks, Halifax Bank Of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland, were among the most in need of taxpayer bailouts.

What people need to do, to educate themselves about what living in Scotland is all about, is to forget everything they saw in "Braveheart" and go and watch "Trainspotting" instead. Any Scot, with enough talent or skill to make money, leaves the country for the US or England as soon as they can and that will continue. Which means there are insufficient human resources to generate the finance to fund the benefits that such a large proportion of the population up North relies on....same as Ireland, to be fair....

I think the Union was good for England, Scotland and Wales, but that since devolution, which the Scottish dominated Labour party pushed through at the second time of asking and for which I can't remember voting, it has been a sh !t deal for England. As we are now spunking even more tax payers money to finance the waste that is the Scottish Parliament, it is time to cut them adrift. In fact, I would like us to do the same to Brussels. Scottish nationals have done more financial damage to this country than Hitler did and we need to redirect the subsidies supporting the Scots to the needy in England, who will be a lot more grateful for the support. Anyway, they won't vote for independence and Cameron can't lose either way, only the SNP can....

In dune's democracy, 40 Conservative votes count for 64 right wing Conservative votes, to be fair...

So, a Scottish born voter living in the UK(over 800,000 of them) will get to vote in elections in both countries, whereas non-Scots living in Scotland, paying Scottish taxes, would not get a vote? This proposition is an unworkable diversion designed to take the focus away from the failings of Scottish politicians, both in the past and currently, with regard to their management of the whole of the economy of the UK. FFS, has anyone forgotten that Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Alistair Darling are Scottish? Their screw ups have affected the provinces, including Scotland, Cornwall, Wales and the North of England, far more than the London suburbs where they prefer to live, now.

In a UK vote, I think there is a possibility that England would vote for getting rid of the moaning, ungrateful, subsidised, skirt wearers and Scotland would vote to remain in benefit heaven. What would they do then?

Cameron learnt from the deal that he made with the Lib Dems regarding the Proportional Representation/Alternative Vote bo££ox, Clegg thought would give their pointless party a bit more power. They were laughed out of the polling station in an expensive and humiliating lesson to all of the marginal parties. I think Salmond saw this and realised that the same would happen to his little scheme to grab more power. Give him all the rope he wants, David. The electorate, when faced with this pointless exercise, will do the same to his party as they have to the Lib Dems. The only organisation that will be laughing at this joke will be the Labour party.

Who else read this thread and thought of this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shk8HawnCTs

Don't, don't....don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Jock...

Since when has a requirement to see a player in action, prevented anyone on this site providing an opinion on how good he is? Alpine provides his opinion on a whole team, regularly, despite rarely seeing them play...

I won 4 tickets for the Basketball finals last year, but got a bit pi $$ed of with the site today. I wanted athletics, but couldn't get a thing......... ....then I discovered the French website selling tickets as a part of an accomodation package and I'm now going to the 200m finals. £500 a head including two nights and breakfast in a hotel and tickets to two sessions of athletics on the 9th August wasn't too bad and there was only two hopes of getting the same tickets on the official London site today...Bob and F*** All...

The FAPPT form has already been submitted:

I wonder if his girlfriend will come over with him?

I'm getting quite excited, TBF. £2625, if we stay where we are, should provide a weekend to remember for me and a cheap hooker....

If they can do that, they should be able to go to a bank. The reason they are going to Eastleigh is because Bransgrove can't get any financial institutions interested and that is not just because of the current economic climate. IT'S A BAD BUSINESS PLAN WITH NO PROSPECT OF FINANCIAL RETURN.

Milligan's death significantly contributed to ending John Major's "Back to Basics" policy initiative. Commentators reflected that the circumstances of the MP's demise were a personal tragedy that unjustly overshadowed his achievements in life and his promising political career. John Major branded the events and circumstances leading to Milligan's death as being "rather sad". His death was one of a number of cases of political "sleaze" which were satirised on television programs such as Have I Got News For You, whose producers sent black bin bags, oranges and black stockings to TV journalists.[6] His death and its reporting has also been a subject of studies of media ethics.His death triggered a by-election at a time which was highly volatile for the Conservative Party and saw the election of Liberal Democrat David Chidgey.

Eastleigh woud probably still have one, if it wasn't for a noose and a tangerine...

Eastleigh Borough Council voted in favour of bailing out the Rose Bowl, last Thursday. They are paying £6.5M for the land, which they will be renting back to Rose Bowl plc for £450K a year. The company is effectively bankrupt, without shareholders funds and lost £900K during the last financial year, so not the ideal tenant. Compounding this, the fearless council are borrowing an additional £32M to build a 4 star Hilton on the site, on the pretext of "protecting jobs". All this money is being borrowed at apparently favourable rates (I reckon about 3.5-4%) from the treasury via the UK Debt Management Office. So, the voters of Eastleigh are to be saddled with a £40M debt, covered by rent from businesses, that couldn't borrow the money from the bank due to the viability or lack of, of their business plan and interest payments of £1.5-£2M a year from council tax. That is a interest burden of about 25% of the total tax collected from Eastleigh tax payers. Saints fans will remember the approach this council took towards a new football stadium at Stoneham. They will also be able to compare the business model of Saints vs the Rose Bowl. In summary, I think Keith House and his Lib Dem chums are totally mental....