Dunblane – docs a staff member confirmed, pupil and parent at high school confirmed, parent at one of the primary schools confirmed, local football coach confirmed.

I’m assuming that everywhere else is on a similar level of cases.

Whole of Bradford only has six cases confirmed. Up 2 from yesterday. But it will come, I’m sure.

Yes, I’m in. Might finish a little early as I’ve a dinner on 29th, but will try to be dry till then.

The question of where the hell we are going under the UK is completely unanswered. I keep hearing about the safe haven of the status quo. There is no status quo.
I think the next 10 years is going to be negative regardless. There’s risk on either path.

Well I’d agree there’s a lot of uncertainty about in the UK ATM. And if the economic situation in the UK deteriorates overall then Scotland will be affected by that as well. But we’re along way from a newly independent Scotland’s fiscal position being better initially than it would be remaining in the UK. Agreed there’s risk on either path. But I’d say undeniably more risk on the iScotland path initially.

Yes – but can you plot me a path from a newly independent Scotland to one of those others? What triggers are there to a higher GDP, what levers does a new iScotland have to pull ( and can they pull them) to raise GDP? What negatives that are a consequence of independence (eg closing Faslane and that loss to the economy) have to be overcome, at what cost and how? I think initially its more likely to be negative.

Indeed, as UK as a whole has improved, so has Scotland, being part of that whole.
I think if there is any reason for an independent Scotland, it isn’t obviously economic, either in a positive or negative way in the long term. Although I do believe it would more likely be economically negative initially, and it would for rUK initially as well.
No-one knows where or when or to whom the sunlit uplands will appear.

I think the figure considered to be sustainable is up to 3% GDP for a deficit – largely because inflation, GDP growth and population growth can be expected to keep total debt at a constant percentage of GDP. Of course if GDP increases to the levels of some of those countries mentioned, you could be borrowing more initially and end up being able to pay it all back out of increase GDP. But at today’s figures, an IS would be starting in a tightish spot, I’d think.
Interestingly Ireland’s GDP/head has got to the levels it has due to low corporation tax and multinationals domiciling in Ireland. Much of that $82k is Apple posting profits in Ireland, but the money going to Apple, not the Irish. Overall its probably been good for Ireland, but the low tax approach which it has come from is the antithesis of what many who look for a more equal society would be advocating for an independent Scotland.

So the population share of that, is about £200bn.

incidentely, scotlands borrowing over the last 20 years, equates to £170bn if you include the geographical oil share, and about £270bn without it.

So from that you’re estimating Scotland needs to put roughly £10bn per annum “on the credit card”. If Scotland’s GDP is £180bn, then that’s annual deficit borrowing of around 6% GDP. UK as a whole is at 1.9% of GDP last year.

I will tell you how it will work though. The companies will grant 1% of shares to the fund until 10% is built up.

The company. So the company will have to own the shares. So they will have to buy them, create them. Or steal them. Which would be a crime. Either way, the government is not going to steak your shares. Stop the bs

Thank you for your explanation. You do realise that it supports OOB,s point don’t you? After 10 years, 10% of the company – that would have been owned by the current owners of the company – will be in the possession of someone else, and without any payment – certainly no promise of payment that can be found in Labour’s pronouncements. Looks like theft – or at the least a stealth tax – to me.

They would. On the basis that if they won a majority with a clear policy of revoke then that was in effect a mandate to revoke.

You may believe that’s acceptable, I don’t.

Cancel A50 – not the right way to stop Brexit IMO

The only way to stop Brexit. The law says Britain leaves if it doesn’t.

Apologies. My understanding was that the LDs, if they had got into power, would have cancelled A50, with no further reference to the electorate. I accept that to stop Brexit we have to revoke A50. I think the only acceptable way of sanctioning that is via a second referendum.

Out of interest what policies put you off?

Cancel A50 – not the right way to stop Brexit IMO
Look at JS as a potential PM – vastly unrealistic expectation
Those were the principal ones. But perhaps if they were ramping up in the polls I’d still consider them – but they’ve blown it.

Surely you can’t vote Conservative?

Indeed I won’t. I may not vote at all, for the first time in 40+ years. If I vote it will be LD. I was lining up early on to vote LD but their policy of revoke A50 whatever made me feel they’d overplayed their hand. And as usual, they may be centrist in some things but they’re extreme in some of their Liberal ideas.
But don’t be so surprised if someone is going to vote Tory. Millions are – and they’re not all fools or Little Englander isolationists. There are many who will hold their nose and vote Tory because they think the current incarnation of Labour is even further beyond the pale.

And how are Labour not meeting every one of those criteria already?

See CHF’s post above – viz

Moving away a Marxist shadow chancellor, and a shadow home secretary who thinks Mao wasn’t all that bad. That would be a start, I’d say.

Oh, and the whole inviting nasty people to parliament. Better stop that as well, I reckon.

I am that Conservative remainer, despairing of the direction the Tory party has gone and would readily vote Labour otherwise this time around.

hey may even make society a bit better, god forbid.

There’s an awful lot of good that could be done without going to the extremes of public ownership, union influence and appropriation of private assets that Labour are proposing. And as I said I would readily support that.

This. The Tory party is an omnishambles and has been for years. (Even if they weren’t 9 years in Government *alone* would be enough to condemn most Governments to lose just out of voter feeling it’s ‘time for change’.)

Any Labour leadership since Foot would be looking at a landslide right now. The only thing that could have saved the Torys is Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell.

For me there’s two parts to this, firstly the overall toxicity of Corbyn because of his past and current affiliations, which his supporters seem happy to overlook. But then there’s the economic policies Labour are proposing, and the capital flight and economic downturn which would ensue.
I could just about hold my nose and vote for Corbyn – he’d be an embarrassment, but perhaps no worse than the current government. But with McDonnell behind him, Labour are positively dangerous. With the current Tories beyond the pale, I won’t be voting for them either. Tragic.

My the Russians have got it sewn up from all sides haven’t they.

Indeed they have.

Moly
Its not the spending on social care etc,etc that prevents me from voting Labour. Its the unnecessary re nationalisation, the 10% appropriation of firms, the compulsory collective bargaining. What will happen is that tax revenues will fall as companies fail to invest and move their operations overseas. Trust in the UK government will fall in the international financial community, the UK’s cost of borrowing will soar, and the cash , if it doesn’t run out, will be severely constrained. For a recent case study see what happened in France in 1987 when Mitterand tried to impose a similar set of socialist policies. The value of the Franc fell by 50% in 2 years, as I recall. That, and the fact that Labour’s leader is a friend of many of the UK’s enemies, an enemy of its friends, a stooge to Russia, supports Leave, etc, etc. I just might vote for Labour if it weren’t for all of that.
And Kelvin, even if it the broadband for all were rolled out, it would be questionable how many if any new jobs were created, and cable, once its in the ground isn’t likely to be worth anything like what it cost to put it there. It would just sit in the ground becoming obsolete. See the history of building the canals and the initial railways for similar case studies.

I think the maximum benefit to society from fast broadband will occur some way short of 100% access for all. That’s not the same for the individual, but for society overall I suspect we can get all the benefits without 100% coverage. Its not like water or sanitation – it isn’t a matter of life and death. And I’d far rather any spare money was spent social care, or housing, or mental health or indeed a ton of other things before we start splashing out on free broadband.

Its not impossible, but as Del says, its not necessary. And the evidence suggests ultimately it would be worse.

Kelvin
In my opinion, the problem with many areas of capitalism today is not that they are inherently bad or inefficient but that new business methods and network effects, partly related to globalisation but also related to new technology have meant the the systems of control that worked for most of a century are now outdated and can easily be circumnavigated by the likes of Amazon, for example. So build new regulations and controls, that work for society overall in today’s technological and geopolitical situation, without unnecessarily constraining the businesses or their profit seeking aims. The last few governments have been very bad at that, Labour’s solution seems to try to destroy capitalism. That’s not whats required – without capitalism we might all be a lot more equal but we would all be a lot poorer – I can’t recall exactly who, but it was an Indian economist who once said – ” Grinding poverty is perpetually sustainable.” And without capitalism, we’d all be grindingly poor.

Social care is in large part funded by local government is it not. It clearly needs more funding, I think the private sector is perfectly capable of providing the care, but it has to be paid for, for those who can’t afford to pay for it themselves.
I take you point about a lack of infrastructure for broadband provision – although I think some here are overstaing the problem. But looking at the state of the roads as an example, I’ve no confidence that taking it into public ownership is going to help at all.

Dazh talking about free broadband :-

This single policy could win the election. If it doesn’t, then people are even more stupid than I thought.

Its people like me Labour should be targeting if they want to gain in the forthcoming election. I’m firmly remain at heart, strongly resent both the direction of the Conservative party and Boris’s role in swinging the referendum result to leave. I’m a socially liberal, economically conservative, globalist, centre right voter. But I now have nobody to vote for, other than reluctantly voting Lib Dem. A labour party led by someone as radical as Corbyn with so many anti business policies and foolish nationalisation plans is a total anathema to me. Saving £30 a month on my bills isn’t going to make a difference. Whereas I might well have held my nose and voted Labour if it was something like it was in the Blairite years.

Can’t remember what else Labour are suggesting for nationalisation but I do believe that a good economy would have a healthy mix of private and state owned services, whereby the state ones are, as I said earlier, in the public interest to do so.

You know, I agree with you there. But before I went around taking anything else into public ownership, I’d like to see the state make a success of the bits they already control. The utilities may not be perfect but they’ll do as they are. Social care, parts of the health service, roads, policing,etc etc all need a lot more spent on them before we start taking anything else into public ownership.

There is a certain HUGE level of irony in TJ’s post.
FTFY

The Great Myth of Urban Britain – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
An article from 2012 from the BBC about the (very small) amount of land in Britain that is built up. I was so surprised when I read it I bookmarked it way back then.
Just to help the debate along a little.
Briefly –
“Having looked at all the information, they calculated that “6.8% of the UK’s land area is now classified as urban” (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way).
The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.”
And
“In England, “78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built”. Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England’s landscape which is built on is…
… 2.27%.”

As for the idea I am so far left – utter ludicrous ad shows two things. The very poor understanding of what left wing means and the blinkered far right attitudes some of you have

I felt it might be pointless trying to engage sensibly with you. I was right.

where there is a proposal to confiscate 10% of mid to large companies shares?

Not in the UK, that’s for sure.

So you’ve missed Labour’s proposal to put 10% of the shares all companies with more than 250 workers into the ownership of the workers?

Most of the UK political scene is centerist!

the only major party that is not is the tories. Eveyone else sits firmly in the european social democratic tradition which is centerist. Its just with the tories puling so far to the right ( alongside neo facists in europe) that it superficially appears that the rest have moved left

I have done this before and got no answer. What plicies from the mainstream parties (bar the tories) are not in the european social democratic centrist position? answer? None!

Ok I know I shouldn’t but I’ll bite. Perhaps you could point out where anyone is planning major re nationialisation of major industries, and where there is a proposal to confiscate 10% of mid to large companies shares?
Trouble with you TJ is you’re so far to the left, from your position everything else looks central or right. It isn’t.

Will we have an event like that this time? Can Corbyn surprise people two years later? I think things will turn towards Labour later in the campaign, but not as much as in 2017…

And May was a terrible campaigner, and announced some unpalatable (to those whose votes she needed) manifesto items. Boris has many faults, but he is a capable campaigner

Electoral Calculus now has Tory majority of 114 seats – up from 90 yesterday with prediction of any Tory majority at 69% – up from 60% yesterday.

Inversneckie was the name Harry Lauder used as a fictional place in his songs – usually to poke fun at someone or some custom – eg “The Laird of Inversneckie” Whether its use predates that or not I don’t know

No – I simply want them to pay their way not be subsidised by the genral taxpayer

They (parents of private school pupils) are the general taxpayer as much as anyone else is. Collectively they more than pay their way. They are entitled to their share of a common resource.

I also loathe the subsidy to the rich from the general taxpayer by taking skilled people trained at the public purse and using them purely for the benefit of the rich

So you’d deny the rich their share of the commonly paid for training for teachers? It looks like it really is all about hating the rich.

Works well for me, and has done over a year. Good value for money as well. Current uptime 95 days 2 hours. Always within 1% of guaranteed speed.

are you being willfully ignorant?

No, it’s not wilful.

🙂 🙂 🙂

Tbh If her own party had supported it Brexit would have happened 🙂

Absolutely. But as there’s been so many times when MPs voting for their party or conscience have derailed something that would have been better than a no deal Brexit, it’s a bit rich piling all this opprobrium on the Lib Dems/Tory remainers for wanting someone other than Corbyn now, I fear.

What it needs is for more mps to put country before party and career.

That’s whats been needed for a very long time now. If, for example, Labour had supported May’s deal, we’d have had Brexit (which is rubbish admittedly) but at least not no deal Brexit – which will be a lot worse.

There isn’t a single politician of any english party who emerges with any credibility from this farce.

fixed that.

So did the SNP vote for May’s Brexit deal? If not then they are complicit along with everyone else if we end up with no deal.

Two dead at the same time out of fifty is a possible indication of something wrong. But sheep just live to die in the most unexpected and incalculable ways. Could be lots of things but fly strike and pneumonia would be pretty high up my list for deaths at this time of year. But of course it could be anything. They’re sheep after all.

That said, I still won’t vote for them as long as they’re lead by a Socialist. I just don’t believe in it.

It does exist – the NHS

The NHS is a publicly provided service. That isn’t socialism. All systems have publicly provided services, even countries that have had far more right wing politics than the UK has had at any time over the last 60 years.