Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.
Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.
That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.
I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.
As far as I know against the Canadian Province visas are not restricted to just those provinces, they are Canadian visas issued by those Provinces (hence the strict caps).
If those 10k get the first train down to London then the devolved government will have entirely wasted its allowance. It would be highly embarassing to them, while being a relatively absorbable number for London. If the UK government were only 10k off target then that would be an incredible achievement.
By putting a cap rather than restrictions in place it devolves the responsibility as well as the rights to Scotland. If Scotland can't come up with a right measure to ensure their migrants are actually people who want to be in Scotland then that's their problem. If they can, then there's no issue.
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.
I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.
If you pay Scottish income tax you can get a Scottish work permit? The income tax domicile has rules that could be applied here.
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.
I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.
If those 10k all got the train to London then that'd be Scotland's problem. The UK would be willing to tolerate the risk of an "extra" 10k of visas as part of a devolution settlement.
I guess it could be solved by linking visa to job offers at Scottish companies, but people could always break those conditions, and go illegal, or forge or hack the system.
If we are focussed on the quality of people we actually need going illegal is going to be a pretty unlikely option. A financier based in Edinburgh but in fact spending a few days a week in London we can live with.
Boris once more proving how unserious he is. If we are looking for grand engineering projects there are plenty that could be done in the north of England and which would be far more beneficial for growth.
"Can we have more money for the NHS". "No, sorry". "Can we have more money for our armed forces". "No". "Schools?". "Nope". "Police?". "Nope". "A massive bridge across the English Channel?". "Of course. Great idea". The Tories actually want to lose, don't they.
Hold on - does Labour want Government-inspired large infrastructure projects or not?
There's nothing wrong with Government-inspired large infrastructure projects that are of great utility. Since there's already a Channel tunnel and no obvious present pressing need for a further crossing, this does not come in that category.
Crossrail 2 and sorting out the Transpennine railways would both be a much higher priority. For that matter, improving the Scottish central belt's transport connectivity would also be very worthwhile.
The M8 carpark is coming close to being an historic monument up here. If they don't improve it soon there may be additional planning issues.
The M8 through Glasgow is possibly the most confusing road in the country, exits every couple of hundred yards, with nowhere near enough signposts and badly numbered junctions. The only other road that comes close is the massive one way roundabout that is Leeds city centre.
Look, if you can't cope with a motorway changing from 5 lanes to 3 to 5 to 4 to 2 in a mile and a half stretch with on and off slip roads on both the fast and slow lanes with traffic looking to make their way from the fast lane entrance to a slow lane exit and vis-a-versa then should you really be driving?
Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.
Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.
That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.
I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.
As far as I know against the Canadian Province visas are not restricted to just those provinces, they are Canadian visas issued by those Provinces (hence the strict caps).
If those 10k get the first train down to London then the devolved government will have entirely wasted its allowance. It would be highly embarassing to them, while being a relatively absorbable number for London. If the UK government were only 10k off target then that would be an incredible achievement.
By putting a cap rather than restrictions in place it devolves the responsibility as well as the rights to Scotland. If Scotland can't come up with a right measure to ensure their migrants are actually people who want to be in Scotland then that's their problem. If they can, then there's no issue.
I do agree that the first priority is to have an enterprising country so full of opportunity that those trains are full coming the other way!
I believe they do in Australia & Canada? Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
r England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
Lol, always good to get the informed view!
Looking into it, its a federal issue in Canada that has very limited devolution.
Control over numbers etc (outside of Quebec) is controlled by the Federal government. A limited quantity of places are delegated by the Federal government to the Provinces.
That seems like a reasonable solution for Scotland to be honest. If the UK government were to eg say that Scotland could award 10,000 visas per annum and that it was up to the Scottish government how they get awarded then that seems a fair compromise.
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
Scottish politicians of all stripes should be giving this serious thought. Maybe a bond? Making their visa contingent upon working for a Scottish based company? Some sort of limitation on where the NI number can be used? What works in other countries? We need practical answers to questions that are not straightforward to make the case. Then we need to speak to our Universities, our finance institutions, our hospitals and research labs and our IT businesses and find out what they need.
I can't help feeling our current government would far rather have a grievance than a practical policy.
Harsh on Theresa.
But not, unfortunately, Nicola.
Yup, recent history certainly suggest a Westminster government constantly offering solid proposals & analysis, negotiation & compromise, while the dastardly Nats just sail on not listening and issuing gnomic statements about how now is not the time.
I think that's a little harsh on the Nats analysis of the impact on Scotland of leaving the UK EU Single Market.....
Although it will make IndyRef2 easier - just take the Nat 'impact on Scotland' and multiply by four......
I am not a member of the SCons but I think you will find what you are looking for here: http://www.scottishconservatives.com/policy/policy-papers/ The blueprint on how to improve the curriculum for excellence this month is more advanced than some of the other areas you have mentioned.
I agree (if this is what you are saying) that all of our politicians of all parties should be focussing on our economy like lasers and talking of very little else. The growth projections for Scotland are horrific. Rather than moving around the deckchairs of yet another set of public bodies everyone should be working on how do we grow our economy, what are the impediments and what can we do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business in?
Please tell me you haven't read through even a goodly portion of these? I might have to reassess your 'relatively normal' status otherwise.
I don't see anything at first glance on immigration, though I daresay that tricky word may be hidden away somewhere. I'd say that was a major component of our future growth with a big impediment to it hurtling down the line. How far would you go in allowing Holyrood control over it?
I'm not David but I wouldn't give Holyrood any control over it. That's a national issue not a local one. Very rarely globally do states or provinces get control over migration.
I believe they do in Australia & Canada? Does the + part of Canada + that we're apparently aiming for consist of not letting uppity provinces/regions/nations have a say?
I may be wrong but as far as I know only Quebec within Canada does. Also a Quebecois visa doesn't entitle you to live or work in the rest of Canada but considering that Quebec has an area of over half a million square miles, compared to the 30k square miles of Scotland.
This isn't an issue I particularly care about though and if it works for Scotland and can work for England I'd be OK with it being devolved. But as far as I know its not currently a devolved issue and isn't usually.
I'm pretty sure Alberta has the ability to issue visas too - usually for work in Fort McMurray and other out the way oily spots.
'If you pay Scottish income tax you can get a Scottish work permit? The income tax domicile has rules that could be applied here'.
So would you have patrols on the border and on the trains and coaches to stop people moving south to London or elsewhere? It would require a lot of policing in practice - cos if people wanted to live and migrate to Scotland rather than London they would be doing so already wouldn't they?
As for London having its own scheme - how will that work when London has no legislative assembly and the Mayor shares powers with boroughs. Does the Mayor decide, or individual boroughs or both? Will London get the jobs and tax revenue - but neighbouring south east councils have to provide the housing, school places, extra transport, extra GPs etc assuming we aren't going to mandate they live in the GLA area. In many outer boroughs you can literally cross residential streets and 'leave' London.
And if London gets its own policy on visas and migration - why not Cornwall or Yorkshire? Where would it end?
If remain voting areas get special treatment - and can opt for more migration than the government wants - is it not right that leave voting counties or regions should be able to opt for less migration and fewer visas if they wish?
Wasn't an element of the Leave vote a reaction against the view that London and Scotland was getting special treatment and too much money and infrastructure while the rest of England and Wales was losing out? So the answer is more special treatment for Scotland and London?
Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.
Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.
And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.
Just maybe Nicola should try asking for something other than a second referendum? Or that we should remain in the Single Market?
Where are the proposals about how fishing is going to be managed after Brexit? What do we want to revive our north eastern ports? What are our priorities in farming subsidies? What do we want from the trade deal with the EU?
Maybe I am being unfair and behind the scenes there are lots of constructive discussions going on. But I doubt it.
I believe there have been analyses that show SCon msps go on about a second referendum more than any other topic. Well, apart from the related SNPbad of course.
Re single market, some pols are more flexible than others. Of course Nicola doesn't have to concern herself over her future career in the Conservative party.
'Ruth Davidson accused of "rewriting history" over EU single market demand
RUTH Davidson has been accused of “shamelessly” rewriting history after dropping her demand to stay in the EU single market as she set five Brexit tests for the SNP to meet. The Scottish Tory leader told the BBC in July that even after the Brexit vote her preference remained membership of the single market. She said: “I want to stay in the single market.. even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of Labour.” However the single market was missing from five tests Ms Davidson issued to the SNP ahead of the party unveiling its plan for a bespoke Brexit deal for Scotland later this month.'
Look, if you can't cope with a motorway changing from 5 lanes to 3 to 5 to 4 to 2 in a mile and a half stretch with on and off slip roads on both the fast and slow lanes with traffic looking to make their way from the fast lane entrance to a slow lane exit and vis-a-versa then should you really be driving?
Like
The fast lane exit at the University is my favourite...
I don't think any of the parties come out well from the Greek saga. This is mainly because their agendas were completely unaligned: the EU wanted to protect the rest of the Eurozone from a contagious Greek default; the IMF wanted to protect their investment in Greece; the Greek government wanted to screw as much money as possible out of other parties. Each party seems to have achieved their immediate objective, but none of them, including the Greeks themselves, had Greece's real interest at heart. As a result, the EU comes across as callous, the IMF as self-serving and the Greek governments as dishonest.
The fundamental mistake that Tsipras made, was that he was convinced that the rest of Europe (and the world) was desperate to keep Greece in the Eurozone.
The reality was that the Germans and the IMF thought it would be better if they left.
That miscalculation was disastrous, because the entire Greek negotiating position was based on the threat of departure.
However, the public still remains largely opposed to the idea of another poll. Overall, 51% are opposed to a second referendum and just 38% are in favour.
Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.
Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.
And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.
Mad.
Be better to build a bridge to the Isle of Wight and open up the economic benefits there.
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
I really don't see that being a problem at all. When Pablo turns up in London, the firm who would employ him asks for his NI number and to see his Passport and Visa.
"Oh, I'm sorry Pablo, we would be committing a criminal offence if we employed you here. Your visa and NI code both indicate you are only allowed to work in Scotland."
Heck, we have work visas that are only valid for a single company. I can't see why it would be difficult to restrict it to Scotland.
More of an issue would be that Pablo could probably rent a room in a shared house in Newcastle and commute up to Scotland: but unlike with London, that seems a pretty small issue for Scotland.
I don't think any of the parties come out well from the Greek saga. This is mainly because their agendas were completely unaligned: the EU wanted to protect the rest of the Eurozone from a contagious Greek default; the IMF wanted to protect their investment in Greece; the Greek government wanted to screw as much money as possible out of other parties. Each party seems to have achieved their immediate objective, but none of them, including the Greeks themselves, had Greece's real interest at heart. As a result, the EU comes across as callous, the IMF as self-serving and the Greek governments as dishonest.
The fundamental mistake that Tsipras made, was that he was convinced that the rest of Europe (and the world) was desperate to keep Greece in the Eurozone.
The reality was that the Germans and the IMF thought it would be better if they left.
That miscalculation was disastrous, because the entire Greek negotiating position was based on the threat of departure.
Are you still expecting FTA negotiations this year? Do you think Macron is bluffing?
There was no significant variation in support for a new referendum in any of the scenarios: between 38 and 40 per cent depending on the question. Opposition to a new referendum outweighed support (indeed with between a quarter and a fifth of remainers answering in the negative) in all scenarios but one: a choice between accepting the terms negotiated for Brexit, or leaving without a deal – that is, a referendum which would result in Britain leaving the EU in any event. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/parties-stand-second-eu-referendum/
I went to see The Darkest Hour last night and greatly enjoyed the film. An excellent portrayal of Churchill. I did feel,however, that there were serious historical inaccuracies which went beyond the fabricated London Underground scene. Halifax and Chamberlain were over-demonised. There was never a concerted effort to topple Churchill in the way suggested. Halifax certainly did wish to consider negotiations via Mussolini - but Chamberlain sat very much on the fence on the issue whilst Churchill received the firm support of the Labour War Cabinet members - Attlee & Greenwood.Churchill never forgot the support he received from his Labour colleagues at that crucial time, and Chamberlain eventually joined them in supporting him. Moreover, Chamberlain's cancer condition was not diagnosed until July 1940 and so lay in the future at the time of these events. Another inaccuracy related to Churchill's appointment as PM on May 10th 1940. He received the summons to the Palace at The Admiralty - not at Chartwell - and the succession to Chamberlain had been decided the day before at No 10. When asked by Chamberlain whether there was any problem with a Peer becoming PM , Churchill turned his back and simply remained silent - a silence which was only broken when Halifax himself spoke up to say that he did not think it appropriate in the circumstances for the PM to come from the House of Lords.
The scene in the Commons where the opposition benches were loudly cheering him on whilst those behind him were largely silent was a demonstration of the support Labour gave him but I wondered if that was accurate too. Once Labour joined the unity government did their MPs still sit in the opposition benches?
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
I really don't see that being a problem at all. When Pablo turns up in London, the firm who would employ him asks for his NI number and to see his Passport and Visa.
"Oh, I'm sorry Pablo, we would be committing a criminal offence if we employed you here. Your visa and NI code both indicate you are only allowed to work in Scotland."
Heck, we have work visas that are only valid for a single company. I can't see why it would be difficult to restrict it to Scotland.
More of an issue would be that Pablo could probably rent a room in a shared house in Newcastle and commute up to Scotland: but unlike with London, that seems a pretty small issue for Scotland.
Exactly. I have no idea why this is so hard to grasp. Anyone would think the brexiteers are being deliberately dumb!
However, the public still remains largely opposed to the idea of another poll. Overall, 51% are opposed to a second referendum and just 38% are in favour.
Public support for brexit slip slidin' away. That's the headline.
I believe there have been analyses that show SCon msps go on about a second referendum more than any other topic. Well, apart from the related SNPbad of course.
Re single market, some pols are more flexible than others. Of course Nicola doesn't have to concern herself over her future career in the Conservative party.
'Ruth Davidson accused of "rewriting history" over EU single market demand
RUTH Davidson has been accused of “shamelessly” rewriting history after dropping her demand to stay in the EU single market as she set five Brexit tests for the SNP to meet. The Scottish Tory leader told the BBC in July that even after the Brexit vote her preference remained membership of the single market. She said: “I want to stay in the single market.. even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of Labour.” However the single market was missing from five tests Ms Davidson issued to the SNP ahead of the party unveiling its plan for a bespoke Brexit deal for Scotland later this month.'
Sigh. Three points. Ruth has been sensible enough to acknowledge the reality that we are leaving the Single Market. It was not her preference but it is a fact so she looks to deal with the consequences and mitigate them. The Scottish government prefers to whine about it and refight the EU referendum.
Secondly, the SNP are in government. It is their job to address the realities of the situation and look to develop these in the Scottish interest. By standing on the sidelines and whining they achieve absolutely nothing.
Thirdly, I do note that you are not indicating how our government is addressing any of the questions I have put. I fear that is because there are no answers.
I don't think any of the parties come out well from the Greek saga. This is mainly because their agendas were completely unaligned: the EU wanted to protect the rest of the Eurozone from a contagious Greek default; the IMF wanted to protect their investment in Greece; the Greek government wanted to screw as much money as possible out of other parties. Each party seems to have achieved their immediate objective, but none of them, including the Greeks themselves, had Greece's real interest at heart. As a result, the EU comes across as callous, the IMF as self-serving and the Greek governments as dishonest.
The fundamental mistake that Tsipras made, was that he was convinced that the rest of Europe (and the world) was desperate to keep Greece in the Eurozone.
The reality was that the Germans and the IMF thought it would be better if they left.
That miscalculation was disastrous, because the entire Greek negotiating position was based on the threat of departure.
I believe so but Tsipras also made a mistake with the timing. By the time he issued that threat the EU had insulated the Eurozone from the fallout of a Greek default. The bailout cost was roughly neutral to the rEU. They could do without the disruption of a default, but it would also save them a shedload of money.
If those 10k all got the train to London then that'd be Scotland's problem. The UK would be willing to tolerate the risk of an "extra" 10k of visas as part of a devolution settlement.
I guess it could be solved by linking visa to job offers at Scottish companies, but people could always break those conditions, and go illegal, or forge or hack the system.
The illegal bit will always be an issue. My mythical Pablo - post Brexit - will be able to come to the UK as a tourist and then overstay. (Which is, of course, how almost all illegal immigration into the US happens.)
Those Albanians in your local car wash. They don't have visas or work permits, or probably any right at all to be here.
We, as a country, have done a very poor job of clamping down on illegal immigration. I have always felt that this is an area where the government should not just do more, but should be seen to do more. Our system needs to reward those who play by the rules, and punish those who do not.
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
I really don't see that being a problem at all. When Pablo turns up in London, the firm who would employ him asks for his NI number and to see his Passport and Visa.
"Oh, I'm sorry Pablo, we would be committing a criminal offence if we employed you here. Your visa and NI code both indicate you are only allowed to work in Scotland."
Heck, we have work visas that are only valid for a single company. I can't see why it would be difficult to restrict it to Scotland.
More of an issue would be that Pablo could probably rent a room in a shared house in Newcastle and commute up to Scotland: but unlike with London, that seems a pretty small issue for Scotland.
Pablo is more likely to end up working in a takeaway restaurant or being a self employed white van man illegally in England.
However, the public still remains largely opposed to the idea of another poll. Overall, 51% are opposed to a second referendum and just 38% are in favour.
Public support for brexit slip slidin' away. That's the headline.
There was no significant variation in support for a new referendum in any of the scenarios: between 38 and 40 per cent depending on the question. Opposition to a new referendum outweighed support (indeed with between a quarter and a fifth of remainers answering in the negative) in all scenarios but one: a choice between accepting the terms negotiated for Brexit, or leaving without a deal – that is, a referendum which would result in Britain leaving the EU in any event. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/parties-stand-second-eu-referendum/
So the only referendum with popular support is for the Noel Edmunds question.
We should commit to that now, as agreeing that referendum in advance will maximise the chance of a good deal.
However, the public still remains largely opposed to the idea of another poll. Overall, 51% are opposed to a second referendum and just 38% are in favour.
Public support for brexit slip slidin' away. That's the headline.
However, the public still remains largely opposed to the idea of another poll. Overall, 51% are opposed to a second referendum and just 38% are in favour.
Public support for brexit slip slidin' away. That's the headline.
Mr. rkrkrk/Mr. P, given the exchange rate has mostly bounced back, will they be adding more digestives? I suspect this will be like my bank account, which rapidly copied Carney's bed-wetting rate cut, but has yet to copy his much delayed "I was wrong" return to 0.5% move.
Mr. rkrkrk/Mr. P, given the exchange rate has mostly bounced back, will they be adding more digestives? I suspect this will be like my bank account, which rapidly copied Carney's bed-wetting rate cut, but has yet to copy his much delayed "I was wrong" return to 0.5% move.
The best way to see rate rises quickly is to have a debt to the bank
Variable rates on loans and mortgages were notified to debtors the same day as the change was announced!
However, the public still remains largely opposed to the idea of another poll. Overall, 51% are opposed to a second referendum and just 38% are in favour.
Public support for brexit slip slidin' away. That's the headline.
Public belief that Brexit doesn't do any good and at the same time thinking we have to go through with it.
Pretty much as I anticipated. We are still nowhere near resolving the relationship issue. It's fine for Southam and myself to say, of course we will be staying in the Single Market, Customs Union, ECJ or figleaf equivalents, pay handsomely and will do what we are told by the EU forever more. But there is no inevitability about it. Minimal Brexit cuts across every one of Theresa May's red lines. The EU don't care particularly. There's an obligation on them if we stay in their institutions. We have to make the case. Whatever else, this government and its opposition are utterly incapable of making a coherent and compelling case. We could find outthe hard way the difference between a pointless Brexit and a destructive Brexit.
Look, if you can't cope with a motorway changing from 5 lanes to 3 to 5 to 4 to 2 in a mile and a half stretch with on and off slip roads on both the fast and slow lanes with traffic looking to make their way from the fast lane entrance to a slow lane exit and vis-a-versa then should you really be driving?
Like
The fast lane exit at the University is my favourite...
I used to regularly come on the motorway on the corkscrew entrance on the slow lane at Jct 15 only to then exit on the university fast lane exit at 17.
The fun thing being the entrance an exit lanes would be relatively traffic free and fast moving but the middle 2 lanes would have cars crisscrossing from entrance to exit so would be slow and prone to sudden jams. Trying to get out of a lane moving at 5 miles an hour into a lane moving at 60 was... less than fun
That said, I can't see why anyone would go for a variable mortgage when rates are so damned low.
Of course, this is a moot point as the odds of me having one in the near future are about the same as falling out of an aeroplane and landing in the Playboy mansion swimming pool.
Mr. Glenn, got only halfway into that video. He seems likeable but the argument amounts to "You want something different, and that's a personal choice. But only people who share my personal choice, despite losing a democratic vote, should get to determine the democratic landscape. And you'll be dead soon anyway so it's unfair because young people disagree."
The problem remains: how do we stop those 10k getting the first train to London? If we can't then Scotland gets no economic benefit and simply becomes a backdoor undermining UK immigration.
I really don't see that being a problem at all. When Pablo turns up in London, the firm who would employ him asks for his NI number and to see his Passport and Visa.
"Oh, I'm sorry Pablo, we would be committing a criminal offence if we employed you here. Your visa and NI code both indicate you are only allowed to work in Scotland."
Heck, we have work visas that are only valid for a single company. I can't see why it would be difficult to restrict it to Scotland.
More of an issue would be that Pablo could probably rent a room in a shared house in Newcastle and commute up to Scotland: but unlike with London, that seems a pretty small issue for Scotland.
Pablo is more likely to end up working in a takeaway restaurant or being a self employed white van man illegally in England.
But if he's going to do that, why go to all the trouble of getting a Scottish work visa? He'd be committing exactly the same offence as someone who came as a tourist and then worked in the black market.
As it happens, I'm sceptical of the idea of immigration being a devolved issue, because we should (as much as possible) be one country. But I think the argument that it won't work technically is bunkum.
Those Albanians in your local car wash. They don't have visas or work permits, or probably any right at all to be here.
We, as a country, have done a very poor job of clamping down on illegal immigration. I have always felt that this is an area where the government should not just do more, but should be seen to do more. Our system needs to reward those who play by the rules, and punish those who do not.
I suspect the numbers here illegally are much higher than anyone realises and I also suspect the numbers here from the EU living "off the radar" are huge. Is the UK Government going to make a serious attempt to deal with this ? I suspect not - indeed, I suspect there will be an amnesty basically anyone who's drifted here from the former (as they will be) EU countries on whatever basis they are here will be allowed to stay.
That said, I can't see why anyone would go for a variable mortgage when rates are so damned low.
Of course, this is a moot point as the odds of me having one in the near future are about the same as falling out of an aeroplane and landing in the Playboy mansion swimming pool.
My mortgage is at 1% over the base rate, signed when the base rate was about 6% and the bank are now stuck with it. That quarter point rise raised the interest payment by 20% so it got passed on immediately!
That said, I can't see why anyone would go for a variable mortgage when rates are so damned low.
Of course, this is a moot point as the odds of me having one in the near future are about the same as falling out of an aeroplane and landing in the Playboy mansion swimming pool.
I am about to get a mortgage fixed for 30 years at 1.3% in Denmark - incredible, especially as inflation has crept up to about 1.2% here
It's not what they believe but which side they think would win!
12 per cent more people think remain would win a second Brexit vote than think leave would. Not quite the same as what they personally would vote,
Up to 15 per cent of voters say the would potentially vote for Plaid, the Lib Dems. Greens and UKIP. I doubt many of them think those parties are going to form a majority government after the next election!
Beware of polls and check the questions asked. Lots of people like the idea of staying in the single market - in isolation - mention this means uncontrolled immigration from the EU must remain in place and I expect support for that would fall rather a lot!
As for polls - if they were credible Clinton would be in the White House, May would have a 100 seat majority and remain would have won. But who needs real votes?
Let me put it this way, a bridge across the channel would be a "political" decision.
Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.
And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.
Mad.
It's not a serious proposal - and it won't ever be until the channel tunnel hits capacity and/or shipping costs rise significantly - or something like that.
There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.
Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.
Comments
If those 10k get the first train down to London then the devolved government will have entirely wasted its allowance. It would be highly embarassing to them, while being a relatively absorbable number for London. If the UK government were only 10k off target then that would be an incredible achievement.
By putting a cap rather than restrictions in place it devolves the responsibility as well as the rights to Scotland. If Scotland can't come up with a right measure to ensure their migrants are actually people who want to be in Scotland then that's their problem. If they can, then there's no issue.
Although it will make IndyRef2 easier - just take the Nat 'impact on Scotland' and multiply by four......
'If you pay Scottish income tax you can get a Scottish work permit? The income tax domicile has rules that could be applied here'.
So would you have patrols on the border and on the trains and coaches to stop people moving south to London or elsewhere? It would require a lot of policing in practice - cos if people wanted to live and migrate to Scotland rather than London they would be doing so already wouldn't they?
As for London having its own scheme - how will that work when London has no legislative assembly and the Mayor shares powers with boroughs. Does the Mayor decide, or individual boroughs or both? Will London get the jobs and tax revenue - but neighbouring south east councils have to provide the housing, school places, extra transport, extra GPs etc assuming we aren't going to mandate they live in the GLA area. In many outer boroughs you can literally cross residential streets and 'leave' London.
And if London gets its own policy on visas and migration - why not Cornwall or Yorkshire? Where would it end?
If remain voting areas get special treatment - and can opt for more migration than the government wants - is it not right that leave voting counties or regions should be able to opt for less migration and fewer visas if they wish?
Wasn't an element of the Leave vote a reaction against the view that London and Scotland was getting special treatment and too much money and infrastructure while the rest of England and Wales was losing out? So the answer is more special treatment for Scotland and London?
Quite aside from the expense and difficulities in building it, it would require a shit-load of reinforced concrete and steel, pose great difficulties in piling foundations, cost tens of billions, and would be a hazard to shipping and require a lot of maintenance. It would also make illegal entry into the UK even easier.
And I very much doubt there's a business case for it. It would be easier to re-signal the Chunnel and increase Le Shuttle movements for cars and lorries.
Mad.
Re single market, some pols are more flexible than others. Of course Nicola doesn't have to concern herself over her future career in the Conservative party.
'Ruth Davidson accused of "rewriting history" over EU single market demand
RUTH Davidson has been accused of “shamelessly” rewriting history after dropping her demand to stay in the EU single market as she set five Brexit tests for the SNP to meet.
The Scottish Tory leader told the BBC in July that even after the Brexit vote her preference remained membership of the single market.
She said: “I want to stay in the single market.. even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of Labour.”
However the single market was missing from five tests Ms Davidson issued to the SNP ahead of the party unveiling its plan for a bespoke Brexit deal for Scotland later this month.'
https://tinyurl.com/y8npqouv
'Bespoke', major lols.
The fast lane exit at the University is my favourite...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/new-poll-ashcroft-scrap-brexit-second-referendum-remain-leave-2018-1
The reality was that the Germans and the IMF thought it would be better if they left.
That miscalculation was disastrous, because the entire Greek negotiating position was based on the threat of departure.
Be better to build a bridge to the Isle of Wight and open up the economic benefits there.
"Oh, I'm sorry Pablo, we would be committing a criminal offence if we employed you here. Your visa and NI code both indicate you are only allowed to work in Scotland."
Heck, we have work visas that are only valid for a single company. I can't see why it would be difficult to restrict it to Scotland.
More of an issue would be that Pablo could probably rent a room in a shared house in Newcastle and commute up to Scotland: but unlike with London, that seems a pretty small issue for Scotland.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/947154054635053056
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/01/parties-stand-second-eu-referendum/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg0O8CVGySo
Public support for brexit slip slidin' away. That's the headline.
Secondly, the SNP are in government. It is their job to address the realities of the situation and look to develop these in the Scottish interest. By standing on the sidelines and whining they achieve absolutely nothing.
Thirdly, I do note that you are not indicating how our government is addressing any of the questions I have put. I fear that is because there are no answers.
Those Albanians in your local car wash. They don't have visas or work permits, or probably any right at all to be here.
We, as a country, have done a very poor job of clamping down on illegal immigration. I have always felt that this is an area where the government should not just do more, but should be seen to do more. Our system needs to reward those who play by the rules, and punish those who do not.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/954120969366523906
There's been another poll that got Remainers (over) excited:
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/954276054356643840
We should commit to that now, as agreeing that referendum in advance will maximise the chance of a good deal.
Keep it up!
So when are we joining the Euro?
Mr. rkrkrk/Mr. P, given the exchange rate has mostly bounced back, will they be adding more digestives? I suspect this will be like my bank account, which rapidly copied Carney's bed-wetting rate cut, but has yet to copy his much delayed "I was wrong" return to 0.5% move.
Chortle.
Variable rates on loans and mortgages were notified to debtors the same day as the change was announced!
Pretty much as I anticipated. We are still nowhere near resolving the relationship issue. It's fine for Southam and myself to say, of course we will be staying in the Single Market, Customs Union, ECJ or figleaf equivalents, pay handsomely and will do what we are told by the EU forever more. But there is no inevitability about it. Minimal Brexit cuts across every one of Theresa May's red lines. The EU don't care particularly. There's an obligation on them if we stay in their institutions. We have to make the case. Whatever else, this government and its opposition are utterly incapable of making a coherent and compelling case. We could find outthe hard way the difference between a pointless Brexit and a destructive Brexit.
The fun thing being the entrance an exit lanes would be relatively traffic free and fast moving but the middle 2 lanes would have cars crisscrossing from entrance to exit so would be slow and prone to sudden jams. Trying to get out of a lane moving at 5 miles an hour into a lane moving at 60 was... less than fun
https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/946768457357434880
That said, I can't see why anyone would go for a variable mortgage when rates are so damned low.
Of course, this is a moot point as the odds of me having one in the near future are about the same as falling out of an aeroplane and landing in the Playboy mansion swimming pool.
Compelling it is not.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15866967.Video__SNP_accused_of_Trump_like_attack_on_critic_in_broadcast/
As it happens, I'm sceptical of the idea of immigration being a devolved issue, because we should (as much as possible) be one country. But I think the argument that it won't work technically is bunkum.
new thread
It's not what they believe but which side they think would win!
12 per cent more people think remain would win a second Brexit vote than think leave would. Not quite the same as what they personally would vote,
Up to 15 per cent of voters say the would potentially vote for Plaid, the Lib Dems. Greens and UKIP. I doubt many of them think those parties are going to form a majority government after the next election!
Beware of polls and check the questions asked. Lots of people like the idea of staying in the single market - in isolation - mention this means uncontrolled immigration from the EU must remain in place and I expect support for that would fall rather a lot!
As for polls - if they were credible Clinton would be in the White House, May would have a 100 seat majority and remain would have won. But who needs real votes?
There probably will come a time when we need a new fixed link to the continent, but not yet. You don't build a bloody expensive bridge (the construction would inevitably be underwritten by the taxpayer) with a limited lifespan in the hope of future demand. It goes against the national interest.
Not that the overpromoted charlatan that is our foreign secretary understands the national interest.
grr.