No facts, poorly prepared and irrational statements. He’ll fit right in.

If that’s the standard, why isn’t Grayling on here?

HDCP could be your enemy.

And virgin TV anywhere won’t work – it is locked to only the device’s screen. Can’t use MHL or casting or anything like that with it.

Well, we keep being told there will be no need for a hard land border, but not how that will be acheived,

Because of the geography, you could readily envisage a scenario where the Common Travel Area is preserved with Ireland outside Schengen. There could be free movement of people across the border (but with other rights to residence, work, benefits perhaps curtailed).

There would need to be a customs/trade border to block free movement of goods. That would require border checks. I’m sure nobody can see any problems at all with officers of the British State stopping and searching Irish vehicles as they try to move freely around the island. Nope, no problems there at all because we’ve always got on so well in the past.

downshep – Member
Sometimes you just have to pay up and let those who actually understand the details to allocate the funds.

Who actually understands it though? I doubt the civil service understand the strategic level and politicians of all parties are tainted by their own ideologies rather than taking any sort of evidence-based approach.

Their calculation was that raising the top rate to 50% would cost £30m in lost tax. Scottish Labour think it would raise £100m (Leader on TV earlier). So who is right ?

They both are, and they both aren’t.

You have to make assumptions about behaviours when you change tax rates. Change the assumptions and you change the outcome.

I imagine the SNP have, perhaps reasonably, decided that people would restructure their finances or relocate to avoid the 50% rate. Labour could be being rather optimistically assuming that everyone stays put and pays up.

The problem with making tax a choice is that most people think that somebody else should pay the tax. Or, at best, that they would agree to it if and only if it was spent on exactly what they think.

“Higher taxes are OK as long as they don’t apply to me” is the approach taken by the man on the street.

Most people are blissfully unaware of where public money is spent.

when I tell them it’s only on the bit that earn over the threshold and in actual fact because their national insurance contributions drop off at the same threshold their income tax raises

Except if you are Scottish, we are going to have an effective 52% marginal rate band because this doesn’t happen :-) It will affect my tax planning – as high marginal rates generally change behaviours more than government revenue.

Who is right? the Germans with their co operative approach to industrial relations rather than the adversarial approach we have here.

Just as well we have Brexit to keep us safe from such forward thinking.

Personally, I think our unions are as much an obstacle to cooperative relations as the businesses themselves. There is a role for unions in our society, it just isn’t the role they are currently doing.

In this instance, I think that there are legitimate safety concerns due to the driver’s visibility (or lack thereof). Southern could address these, but aren’t doing so. The union could also work towards a good DOO solution, but would rather keep our railways in a mess.

I rather fancy binding pendulum arbitration to settle industrial disputes. It might stop everybody being quite so bloody minded about things.

Office based Chartered Engineer.

25 days, plus 8 public holidays (which we can take when we want, they aren’t tied down) plus 2 long service days so 35 in total.

Factory shuts for a week between Christmas and New Year, which has to come out of our leave allowance.

Flex days can be accrued on top of that.

There are no codes (UK weapons are not fitted with a PAL). Launch orders come from Northwood, but the submarine crew are completely autonomous.

Leave it to the Glaswegians and they would either deep fry or drink the warheads…

It’s blindingly obvious that the UK leaving the EU changes whether there is a possibility of iS having successor state claim to the EU as the UKl has left and their is a membership “up for grabs”

So do we need a bus with £350m a week on the side again?

While what you suggest is legally possible (pretty much anything is as long as all member states agree), it wouldn’t happen because not all member states would agree. Apart from some who would prefer not to see an independent Scotland within the EU (either because they compete with us or because they have their own separatist movement to worry about) but others would object because, one assumes, an independent Scotland would not take over the UK’s membership in a financially neutral manner. You want the UK’s seat? You can pay the UK’s net contribution…

Ah I see THM I thought there were some banks in London too, but perhaps not or maybe the London based ones all performed to the highest ethical standards

Fred the Shred was a uniquely extreme example of unethical behaviour.

The main issue is the size of the banks relative to the economies within which they exist. The UK could do what it did only because of its size. An independent Scotland (if we assume the same size of financial sector as at present) would struggle to do the same.

Banks losing money – meh. Individuals and businesses getting hamstrung as cash is lost and the economy tanks due to loss of confidence – seriously bad.

The pound usage tit for tat stuff was embarrassing. I don’t know what the answer is but there needs to be one. I’m assuming you don’t think there is one.

There’s the short term solution that would be initially least damaging, but lead to long term problems and also prohibits EU membership (Panama model).

There’s having a formal currency union, but rUK will never enter into that because it has no upside for them and the control they would exert over iScotland would be significant. No workable solution will ever be found here.

There’s the solution that works the best in the long term, but would be incredibly painful initially backed by our own, new, central bank (new free float currency).

Then there’s the Euro.

Personally, I don’t like any of the options and this will always be one of the major weak points in any independence argument.

http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals

That piece is either oversimplified or ignorant of some basic concepts around “money” and the definitions that are used.

So Scotland is successful (in GDP per capita terms, at least) as part of the UK and that’s a reason to break up the UK? Erm…

Perhaps we are only able to reach such dizzy heights of success because we are part of the UK.

that is… I don’t know what that is, I can’t find a word for my reaction.

What’s wrong with this plan? I don’t mean “that’s stupid” objections, I mean what are the actual, legal, practical objections to this plan? Because it makes a lot of sense to me.

1 – most Scots don’t want it
2 – Scotland would inherit treaty obligations and the countries on the other end of those treaties wouldn’t really like such a large change, therefore such a move wouldn’t be recognised internationally (call it unlawful if you like). It isn’t a solely domestic issue. If 90% of the country “leaves” then really it hasn’t and it’s actually the 10% that has left.

The whole successor state thing was done to death. It can’t happen.

If you are speaking in the narrow context of the EU, anything is possible by treaty change (the SNP’s preferred method of joining) but the EU have been consistently clear that the route to membership would be the standard application route. Given how many different states need to agree and the variety of politics involved, nothing unusual would happen in practice. We’d be accepted, but on standard terms (probably quite quickly though, in comparison to other countries because we meet most but not all of the requirements already).

And a question for you tj; do you think a constantly increasing population is a good thing?

How else are most of us going to get our state pension paid for?

The SNP response to the euro referendum is about respecting the overwhelming wishes of the scottish people and protecting our interests as a European country.

Or it’s about taking advantage of the situation to press their own independence agenda. I get that they will oppose Brexit in the commons and that’s OK. But their response has been laughably lacking in substance. All mouth and no trousers.

How many other parties have declared a constitutional crisis to be a good thing?

Now given that whisky and salmon will be predominantly Scots, I wonder how much of UK exports originate in Scotland.

In 2014 there was 27.5bn international exports from Scotland of which 10bn is services.

In the same year, the UK exported (I think, hard to find exactly comparable data) 283bn of which 56% (158bn) was goods.

So Scotland’s international exports are 9.7% of the UK overall and 11.5% of goods.

Top trade destination country for both UK and Scotland is USA (excluding intra-UK trade). Of course, that treats the EU as separate countries and not a single market.

I’d like to know how legally my EU passport can be removed from me.

The EU does not, and never has, issued passports. They have been quite clear (the Scottish government has the letters) that status as an EU citizen comes from being a citizen of a member state. If you cease to be a citizen of a member state (because that state is outside the EU) then you cease to be a citizen of the EU.

And how are the SNP being silly?

Well looking at recent news stories, the obvious one is their transport minister got caught driving without insurance

They have also been caught making SAAS remove statements that bursaries for poor students are being cut to maintain free university education.

All sounds quite silly to me.

How can it be voted down, they have agreed the timetable

And those that vote it down will claim that the government is undermining the timetable by not respecting parliament and giving them something that they can reasonably approve.

Meanwhile the government will claim that the opposition to their bill is ignoring the timetable when really the referendum gave them carte blanche to do what they like and parliament should sign up to that.

The arguments will go along the lines of “the people voted for Brexit” “but not on any terms or at any cost” etc etc. Everyone playing a defender of democracy.

Both sides have easy ways to make a mess of this while also claiming the moral high ground. That, more than the fact of Brexit itself, is what will make this a complete clusterf***.

Of ceases referred to the echr, what % uphold the uk court ruling and % find against uk court ruling.

It’s not too far off 50:50 of those that go to judgement (60:40 maybe), but the overwhelming majority of cases that go to the ECtHR get filtered and never reach judgement. So if you look at the % of submitted cases, it’s probably in single digits.

It’s more about maintaining historical links. Some of those aren’t under what we would, by today’s standards, think of as good circumstances but we can still recognise shared history and work together nicely now.

I don’t see it really has much value beyond that. The voting thing still requires residency which often still needs a visa so it is nothing like the EU relationship.

Grumpysculler – what bad things the ECHR has done? Name 1

I disagree with both the Qatada and Ibrahim judgements and think it is wrong of the European court to intervene here. I also think the prisoner votes issue should stay out of Europe.

Recent judgements start to look like they are moving to making law rather than applying law. I disagree with the USA supreme court ruling on same sex marriage and their constitution for similar reasons (even though I believe in same sex marriage).

I believe that the individual right to petition is being abused, leading to the court being overworked.

I also believe that the European court has done a whole pile of good stuff. My argument is with the poster who said “look at all the good stuff the court has done” (even though some of it wasn’t from that court) and suggested that because it had done some good in its existence then it must be good overall – which seems to me a weak argument.

Personally, I think the court needs reformed and the distinction between making and applying law needs to be reinforced. The role of the court has been lost over time and it is become too political. It needs to go back to being judicial.

For those complaining about the ECHR having a say in British justice, how many of fifty rulings do you disagree with?

So your argument is that because the ECHR did some good stuff, any bad stuff that they did is OK?

edit: Oh FFS those aren’t even all ECHR cases. Why does a UK domestic court ruling on human rights somehow justify the ECHR being superior?

Can you imagine how many people you would have to stay schtum to cover up something like the moon landing or Kennedy?

Somebody did a paper on that. See http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html

Basically worked out, for certain conspiracies, how many people could know and still keep it secret. Then how many would actually know in order to do their jobs.

Glen Hotel in Newtonmore is pretty good and usually has nice ale as a bonus.

Surely if the outcomes are better (financially) than court then one party is getting a “raw” deal (compared to their legal entitlement) and is unlikely to accept it and you end up at court anyway?

It is financially better for the two parties because you don’t have solicitors milking both of you.

But mediation requires an honest commitment from both sides and a reasonable approach

She thinks taking as much as possible from me is best for her

Mediation may change this view, or it will fail as a process. “Getting the most” is not a successful approach to mediation.

The claim (and hire bike) ends once you’ve agreed a cash settlement. I think it is 4 days grace you should be given.

So, assuming that they are clearly wrong and you are in the right, you tell them that you’ll be hiring a replacement bike until they agree to a sensible settlement figure and that they are responsible for this charge. You also send them a bunch of evidence.

FOS guide is what you need to follow http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

If you are fully comp, you can always engage your insurer but that doesn’t necessarily give a better outcome.

Ultimately, you can just reject the settlement outright and take the driver to court.

Perhaps not a decade Matt but I would assume some years of delay. We are testing now on what was taught in previous years.

Which would be a fair defence if this was the SNP’s first term in office.

Good news Graham is that at least Swinney is spinning the news making a statement at 14:30. No sound from Nicky Morgan yet!!

Swinney is actually fairly competent. He might actually be able to do something, if he isn’t distracted by having two full time cabinet roles to fill. CFE was a crap idea, but perhaps the worst thing to do now is keep meddling.

The last three before him that the SNP put in the role were hopeless – perhaps we are now seeing the effects of that.

Hyslop was so bad she was going to lose a vote of no confidence, so she resigned instead.

Russell “was retired” after the referendum because he is a pillock. He should have stayed retired.

Then we get the delightful Angela Constance who can barely string a sentence together and it really is amazing that she manages to breath without guidance.

I generally take a dim view of ministers because they tend not to know a thing about their brief. But the line of SNP education ministers has been impressively and consistently incompetent!

indeed odd that those living in Scotland are less bothered!

Many are, but there isn’t a lot we can do. I do find it interesting that in most areas, devolved institutions seem to perform worse than their English equivalents.

Anecdotally, quite a few valued and experienced teachers have voted with their feet and quit. My mum retired early because she didn’t want to do CFE. My mother-in-law is glad she retired before it was launched. My sister teaches it and hates it – too much emphasis on record keeping and less emphasis on teaching useful stuff. Fortunately, she teaches at an independent school so they don’t have to be slaves to it. Anywhere that outcome based education has been tried has ditched it because it is crap. Oh look – our results say that it is crap too!

On top of that, the SQA is a shambles, mostly because the SNP sent in a bunch of “business consultants” (paid megabucks of public money) to reform it and they pissed off the folk who knew what they were doing enough to make them quit.

Seems like an appropriate time for me to point out that considering education doesn’t fit in with the SNP’s one and only objective of independence.

Nicola Sturgeon explicitly asked to be judged against their record on education. But now they are claiming that the results of a decade of decline doesn’t reflect the current state.

17-55 f2.8

If you are allowed a second, then one of the 70-200 lenses.

Surely it means you must don the little black dress and stupidly high heels?

Government lawyer chappie got a real hard time from the supreme court judges today. Its rahter funny watching someone make the best of a very poor case knowing they are on a hiding to nothing

Some of the arguments seemed a bit odd and flimsy, but I think most would crumble completely under intense questioning from that many senior judges.

I expect the anti-govt counsel to get a similarly tough grilling.

You have to understand what marriage is thru the window of history to see why to some its abhorrent

Personally, I think civil partnerships are abhorrent (to use your word). They only ever existed to make same sex couples legally different to man and wife.

So we should pretty much just ban humans. I mean, if you look at Homo Sapiens through the window of history then we are rather abhorrent.

If you want the benefits of marriage, get married. Simples.

I simply don’t see why you should have to tick a box so to speak to be considered equal partners in a relationship if you do not want to.

So you want some sort of process where you go to a recognised official (with witnesses) and make some declarations and promises, after which you are given special status and a certificate?

In what way is that different to marriage? In a civil or humanist ceremony (humanist marriages are legal in Scotland) the legally required words are very limited.

Ours had no obeying, no religion, no outdated ideas. It was about committing to each other and sharing with each other. That was about it.

If you dislike being married because some other people treat marriage as something else, then the problem is with you and not with marriage.

Personally, I’d rather we never had civil partnerships and had gone straight to same sex marriage but our country wasn’t tolerant enough for that step.

Document everything and follow proper internal processes. If you don’t raise a grievance before you go, you probably won’t get anywhere with a tribunal.

The counter argument to constructive dismissal is often capability – be prepared for that.

What you describe is constructive dismissal if true, but you are expected to make best efforts to resolve the problem before resigning.

If the employer couldn’t give two hoots, that’s possibly constructive dismissal. If you quit without formally highlighting that there is a problem, you are just a quitter.

Indeed. I don’t know the figures, but if we’re talking non-workers, then I’d suspect that far more UK non-workers have settled in the EU than vice-versa.

Sssh. Then the daily mail might have to stop its headlines about the tiny number of immigrants that arrive and collect a nice chunk of benefits.

There is no freedom of movement, there is freedom to work and to expect equal treatment, but you are not free to relocate and expect a different state to support you if you have no hope of finding employment.

It is illegal to use nationality as a basis for discrimination in benefits. If a benefit is given to UK nationals in a given circumstance, it must also be given to EU migrants in the same circumstance. I quoted the relevant article earlier. Some countries work around this by also limiting benefits to their own citizens. We don’t so much.

ok what single [ or free]market has a restriction on labour?
Supply of labour is clearly an intrinsic part of any free market as without it its clearly a “bureaucratic hindrance”.

A single market requires free movement of labour. The earlier common market (as the term is generally used) does not and more resembles a customs union.

But why does either require free movement of all citizens (not just workers) and equal treatment for benefits, healthcare and education?

While plenty of brexiters do take the “they steal our jobs” line (be it true or not) the more general objection I find is to the free movement of non-workers (be it a real problem or not).

You do not have the same legal rights no – but the same principles will be used by a court to divide up the assets ie 50/50 of all assets built up during the time together is my understanding.

Nope.

Each partner owns what they own. If it is owned jointly, then it will be split 50/50 but there is zero claim on assets only owned by one partner.

OP’s partner has no more claim on assets held in his name than I do.

Marriage is completely different. It is a binding legal commitment that you share all assets and so everything owned by either partner effectively becomes owned by both.

However plenty of people both men and women do not believe in marriage for many good reasons so why should they be penalised

Marriage is nothing more or less than a binding legal and financial commitment. You either make that commitment or you don’t. Half an hour in a registry office with two witnesses off the street can get it done.

You want to add love or religion or whatever on top of that then it is up to you but it isn’t required.

Getting lawyers involved will only reduce the total amount you have to split.

ZOMG tj said something I agree with

Not married means you each get what you own. That includes half of any joint assets.

Your relationship is irrelevant and there is no special consideration.

But don’t screw the kids over.

See https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/relationship-problems/ending-a-relationship-when-you-re-living-together/