It isn’t an HMO because it isn’t a tenancy – the landlady lives in the same property which is a specific exclusion in tenancy laws. They are lodgers and have no particular special statutory rights like a tenant would.

I would just leave, she sounds a bit nutty.

Our door needs a key to unlock it from the inside. Police told us not to leave the key in it at night because burglars can reach through the letterbox.

We’ve had thefts in our area like that and my mother-in-law once got her handbag nicked because she left it inside her front door while she went back into the house for something.

We never leave keys at the front door.

Our back door always has the key in (and no letterbox). Sorted :-)

A better voting system would prevent a lot of this, but that’s not going to happen at Westminster or in the States

I actually quite like the systems that the House and Senate have. I think it gives a nice balance and could be adapted to the Commons and Lords (one regional FPTP and one PR maybe). The presidential system is pish though.

Dragon again you show your ignorance of the system. Yes its a unicameral sytem but the committee system is much much stronger that Westminster to provide the checks and balances

WTF – Holyrood committees are incredibly weak, Westminster committees are a far more effective system.

Westminster committees can’t stop legislation but do a lot to improve it. Most of the work of the parliament is done in committee and not in the chamber. One of the differences is that Westminster don’t whip their committees (although party lines are still clear, MPs are often critical of their own party) while the SNP are quite happy to whip their Holyrood committees to smooth things through.

Holyrood committees should be more powerful and a real force to regulate the Scottish Government (which was the original intention behind a unicameral legislature with strengthened committees) but that hasn’t happened in practice.

Personally, I don’t like any of the unicameral setups and would always prefer to have an upper house of some sort (but not like the Lords of today or yesteryear).

“It would also need the EU members to agree Scotland could remain a member”
retro lots of noise from powerful people that they would do this

But it needs to be unanimous and that doesn’t suit all EU member states (it is possible, I don’t think it would ever actually happen). A streamlined application I could easily see – but that still leaves us out of the EU for a time and probably loses us our current opt-outs.

It is good that everything is rosy in Westminster and you can take the time to sort out the way we are governed.

Just because there are problems with Westminster, doesn’t mean that the proposed alternatives are any better.

Politics need to change – Trump, Brexit, UKIP, SNP, Corbyn, Front Nationale, etc are all symptoms of that. But so far the establishment isn’t listening. That doesn’t make those alternatives a good choice even if it makes them look appealing at the time.

MY personal view is that what we need is a Scottish defence force for realistic and reasonable threats ( not imaginary bogeymen) So I would like actually a small cheap military and would expect Scottish defence spending to be a smaller % of GDP than it is. I don’t want to be in Nato.

Which brings you to Alex Salmond’s stated position of standing idly by watching ethnic cleansing and genocide while all you can do is write angry letters.

I think your view is a fair option, but it isn’t one that I agree with.

I believe we should be able to intervene in other countries, but that we have screwed it up a couple of times more recently for a variety of reasons. The USA have a lot to answer for in that respect.

I know, imagine the SNP sticking its noses into a situation that they should just “butt out” from, I mean they aren’t even representing the will of the Scottish people by opposing Brexit… Oh wait…

Except it isn’t the SNP as a political party sticking their nose in (if the Westminster MPs decided to join in this action, I’d not object nearly so much and not at all if they had joined at the start).

It is the Scottish Government joining in the action when the operation of the House Of Commons is not a Scottish Government competence.

The SNP tell us that the people are sovereign, yet they are joining in a court action to make the point that parliament is sovereign over and above the people? I voted remain, I do not want to Brexit but the referendum achieved a majority for Brexit and we have to accept that. The SNP most of all when they set the recent precedent that 50%+1 was sufficient to break up the UK (a far more significant step than withdrawing from the EU). If the SNP had accepted a higher threshold or some second requirement for the Scottish independence vote, perhaps we wouldn’t have Brexit… It takes 75% to change the constitution of a ruddy tiddlywinks club FFS but only 50% for something this big?

And now the Scottish Government is sticking it’s nose into a court case to try and look good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

I hope the government loses the appeal, but I also think the SNP should butt out. Jumping on a bandwagon does them no credit and within the scope of the executive vs parliament argument Scotland has no particular status. If the appeal loses, I’m sure the SNP will be quick to claim credit despite minimal participation.

Yeah, funnily enough all that carping from the Unionist politicians and parties gave them cold feet.

Too bloody right IMHO. We should never have done that deal and the SNP know that otherwise they wouldn’t have tried to keep it quiet.

If it had been subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny at the time, perhaps something could have been done. But trying to hide it created a ticking bomb of political reaction.

“All that carping” is called democracy – not something the chinese would know about, mind you. What you are suggesting is akin to saying all opposition MPs (including SNP ones) should keep their mouths shut and leave the government alone to do what it wants.

You do realise Scotland will need a Navy, and ships will have to be built, so it’s fairly obvious where that would happen.

Norway?

The shipyards have always had the problem of keeping enough work to maintain the workforce, and they have a reasonable (if fractious at times) relationship with MoD to make that happen. If you cannot sustain the workforce full time then the yard would close.

Where will an independent Scotland find the money to keep the same volume of orders going as the UK does? BAE Systems have not been able to develop much of an export business – some of the competition has too much advantage over them. So are you relying on BAE being able to do something it has never been able to do so before?

BAE Systems cannot afford the investment that would be needed upfront to make it commercially viable and for the government to provide it would be illegal state support.

That’s the same reason only warships are built there and not support vessels – the British/Scottish shipyards are quite expensive and so it is a strategic decision to build ships domestically and not an economic one.

No contracts have been signed yet. Its just a promise

The thing about defence procurement is that you usually know what is coming well before the contracts are signed. There may be no contractual obligation on either party yet, but both know what they are planning.

The guys I know from Naval Ships seem pretty chuffed at the moment, I don’t get why we are talking both Scotland and MoD down.

You see in Scotland you are an adult at 16.

So why do 16 and 17 year olds need a state guardian if they are adults? I have no strong feelings either way on them voting, but I do think policy needs to be consistent.

I wonder if the SNP would remove child benefit from this age group if it was devolved…

The ashcroft poll had a sample size of 14 for the 16-17 vote – effectively useless and an offence to statistics to publish it. Even the 18-24 vote has a rather low sample size (84), the rest should all be within 5-10% of the actual population.

I don’t know about the yougov poll so won’t comment.

So we have complaints that, instead of the 13 ships mooted before the referendum, Glasgow shipyards are only getting 18 ships instead (13 firm, 5 probable)…

Hmmm… so 10% at their high water mark …as opposed to the 32% in England.

Tories 22% Labour 22.6% SNP more than both put together. How do you think Ruth Tank Commander will do now May is in power. Of course I am sure you realise that the 8% up swing in Tory votes coincide with an 9% drop in Labour’s share.

Which are both fair comments, but have nothing to do with tjagain misrepresenting Scottish politics to manufacture support for his arguments.

As for your last point, well you state that if you reword the question you can get whatever answer you want.

And so perhaps the nats (including tjagain) shouldn’t claim the populace support unilateral disarmament when that is far from clear…

yes big and daft. Ukip have less than 2% of the vote up here and tories well under 20%

UKIP got over 10% of the vote in the last European elections.

Tories got 22% in the last Holyrood elections.

So, um, no.

We don’t want nuclear weapons

The polls suggest that Scotland is split on the issue – depending on the wording of the question you can get results in favour, against or evenly split.

12 years uncontested exclusive use is required for adverse possession…

10 years.

it shows another boundary which is not there

The boundary is there – you just don’t have anything marking it :-)

do we get HM land registry to amend the boundary on the land plan?

And, presumably, the plans for the flats as well and then you need their lenders and owners (not the committee but both freeholder and leasholders) on board and agreeable and legal fees paid for them and aargh.

Your possession isn’t adverse possession if it is agreed so that probably isn’t the route to use.

what i need to know is, what is the quickest and cheapest option to appease the solicitors and close the sale.

You could always ask your solicitor? It’s what you pay them for…

Legislation is clearly required. Maybe The Tea Act.

We could do better at providing secure and well paid employment, if we had power over all economic and industrial policy

And what exact actions would you propose? I have seen lots of “we need powers over this and powers over that” but no details of legislation or policy. Previous attempts to encourage growth outwith the southeast have not done too well, so what would you do differently?

There is a big gap between identifying something that needs fixed and implementing steps to actually fix it. Instead of simply highlighting what is wrong, could you suggest details of how it can be improved?

Even though it’s not true, the idea that English taxpayers are subsidising Scots is a pervasive one.

Subsidise might not be the right word, but there is a “fiscal transfer” (the SNP words, not mine) into Scotland (see GERS for details). Even the SNP have said that full fiscal autonomy couldn’t take place without “fiscal balancing” to replace Barnett.

Money has flowed in both directions historically. Today, and for the forseeable future, Scotland is a financial net beneficiary. Basically London is supporting the UK (but London probably couldn’t be London without the rest of the UK so quid pro quo).

Big and daft – have a google – its all out there. Senior EU officials, foreign ministers etc. We can’t have an official answer until westminster asks

Have a google – it’s all out there. The Scottish Government asked for, and received, an official answer. This whole “only Westminster can ask” is a smokescreen. Our UKIP MEP asked as well.

The SNP didn’t like the answer, so they carried on as if they had never asked, but the letters are available on the Scottish Government website.

If Scotland had voted for independence, it would be a new country to which the treaties would not apply. It could apply to join through the usual route.

While I am fairly confident we would be accepted into the EU, it might not be pleasant (we don’t meet the criteria), we’d almost certainly not have all our current opt-outs and it wouldn’t be particularly quick. Bear in mind that a unanimous vote of all existing members is required.

Whisky is taxed that much – vat and duty. Both are at the point of consumption so nothing is received for exports.

Under the GERS methodology, sales in E&W are allocated tax in E&W because that’s where the liability arises. Only whisky purchased in Scotland has vat and duty accrued in Scotland because that’s how tax works.

An undrinkable £10 bottle of whisky includes something around £7.50 vat and duty which goes straight to the government. Similar story for other alcoholic products and petrol/diesel – only at the point of purchase by a consumer does tax become payable.

You could choose to tax exports, but that’s generally quite a bad idea because economics. The main export tax is VAT and that’s a mechanism to let the exporter claim back the vat they have already paid.

As a quick example anything that is considered dual use

Which is covered by the waasenaar arrangement – something we signed up to as a nation and not as part of the EU.

If a semiconductor is manufactured in the UK them placed in electronics in the EU then this could be an issue

And you need to consider things like the de minimis rule when working out who the end user is so that often the export trail stops somewhat short of the actual end user.

Export control doesn’t give a damn about the EU. As you highlight, if I discuss controlled technology with a french national then I require an export licence (usually the OGEL). That has nothing to do with the EU and it won’t change as a result of Brexit.

If ever there was a thread where people go on a list, this is it.

Your name is going on the list!

What is your name?

If you use a live catch trap you need to do two things

– check it very regularly
– release the mouse effing miles away or it will just come bacross

I used to use them but, after a few starved mice and the pain of driving to release it, I now use good old fashioned spine-breakers. Much better.

An industry insider recently shed some light on it for me. All the pure ethanol that goes into making the cheap cider etc. Is distilled by SWA members. their objection has nothing to do with whisky and everything to do with profit.

Or even just the ability to break even.

Some distilleries don’t make enough money on the good stuff to keep running. So they sell off a lot of byproduct or side lines and that keeps the lights on and stills running.

Take away the cheap stuff and the proper whisky may go with it.

My main objection to this has always been the implementation – it isn’t a tax, it will just boost supermarket profits.

Eritrea? Slovenia? Croatia?

1990s Yugoslavia is hardly the best comparison for the current state of the UK and Eritrea is not really the sort of country I aspire for us to be.

Scotland is a country – the UK is a union.

Scotland may be a country (which is a vague term at best), but the internationally recognised sovereign state is the UK. The UK is a unitary state, not a federal one.

Scotland has no status in international law. Scotland is not a member of the EU, UN, NATO, etc; Scotland cannot sign international treaties; and Scotland cannot legally declare independence unilaterally because that would breach the territorial integrity of the UK. Some may accept it (International Law is mostly custom rather than statute or treaty) but it would be difficult to do and we could well end up as an economic pariah. The economics of an independent Scotland would be hard enough…

There are lots of things that Scotland could do, but for us to shove the middle finger at Westminster and claim that the United Nations will save us is somewhere between ignorant and childish. The UN is rather more concerned with places that have real problems.

Ninfan – its not nonsense. there is no reason at all Holyrood could not arrange its own referendum without Westminster permission and it would be recognised by the UN.

International law only provides for self-determination where that does not affect territorial integrity. Seccession by self-determination (i.e. the UDI) is not legally recognised. The internationally recognised territory is the United Kingdom and any break up of that territory is an internal matter.

You can find many papers on the topic – it is a contentious one and there is a desire for change but, right now, the territorial integrity of the UK trumps any right to self-determination in international law.

Some countries may choose to recognise states in spite of this, others are free not to.

That’s why places like Kosovo are still contentious (and I guess Crimea now too).

You would do best to scour classifieds looking for broadly comparable bikes (of similar age) to back up your argument. That’s what generally happens when haggling over cash settlements over written off cars and is the easiest way to get to where you should be.

HMRC consider that fair market value of a 4 year old bike (new price £500-£1000) is 7% of the purchase price…

Potentially yes, but it will come down to the quality of the contract that is put in place.

And, of course, the public sector has such a good track record in putting together decent contracts…

Unfortunately, the “lucky” generation can still vote – and as the EU vote and the Scottish Independence vote showed, they use their vote to go against the wishes of the people who will be around the longest to see the results

And perhaps their greater life experience gives them a different perspective that has merit?

The main thing that recent votes have shown is that older demographics vote and younger ones don’t. It is the younger age groups we should look down on because they can’t be bothered to cast their vote.

Removing universal suffrage, as you suggest, is a slippery slope. Why limit discrimination just to age (aside from it identifying a group you don’t agree with)?

Still signed off work?

scruff9252 – Member
Why should religious organizations be exempt from the equality act 2010?

Because Schedule 23, section 3 lets them:

(3)The organisation does not contravene Part 3, 4 or 7, so far as relating to religion or belief or sexual orientation, only by restricting—

(a)membership of the organisation;

(b)participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;

(c)the provision of goods, facilities or services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;

(d)the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation.

(4)A person does not contravene Part 3, 4 or 7, so far as relating to religion or belief or sexual orientation, only by doing anything mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) on behalf of or under the auspices of the organisation.

(5)A minister does not contravene Part 3, 4 or 7, so far as relating to religion or belief or sexual orientation, only by restricting—

(a)participation in activities carried on in the performance of the minister’s functions in connection with or in respect of the organisation;

(b)the provision of goods, facilities or services in the course of activities carried on in the performance of the minister’s functions in connection with or in respect of the organisation.

Those exceptions apply both to doctrine and to “strongly held convictions of a significant number of followers”

The church as an institution doesn’t have a problem and his appointment meets their requirements (gay is OK, gay marriage is not). It is a more fundamentalist group of the church that objects.

Religion should not be an excuse for discrimination IMHO. Can you imagine the reaction if a church stuck up a “No blacks, no Irish” sign? Things change in 2000 years and they need to be made to get with the times.

I work in engineering, we’re still expected to turn up in a suit and tie everyday, I stopped bothering with the tie after a while on the same project with the same client, but still had a neutral one in my desk drawer for meeting new clients or wore one if the clients management team was due in the office.

I work in engineering too and we have a flexible dress code. You don’t see too many suits in our offices. Our customers frequently don’t wear suits, our suppliers is a mix. I generally wear a tie, but never a suit.

With some exceptions, I’d almost say there was an inverse correlation between suit-wearing and job performance at most levels up to and including middle management.

Fortunately, we and our customers are generally more interested in performance and output than what you wear (within reason and allowing for Health and Safety rules).

Bunch of bar stewards. It’s straight up criminal damage. Police won’t be interested, but you are entitled to civil remedy. But:

although i can’t prove this

Here is you problem. Ask around, chainsaws aren’t quiet and someone may have seen or heard something. You could also try calling around local tree surgeons – are they of a size that your neighbour would really be taking the tops off and disposing of the trees themselves?

With regrads to “proof” any court would probabky determine beyond reasonable doubt that it was them that cut them down.

Based on no evidence at all other than “they live next door, m’lud”? Not going to happen. The bar for a criminal offence (which you refer to) is, in reality, very high and this will fall well short. That it is completely obvious is not a legal argument.

In civil court, where the test is “on the balance of probabilities” then you may stand a chance. You could really do with a witness though…

NB you yourself may be in breach of high hedge legislation and end up being required to reduce the height, but there’s a proper process for that via the council.

Put a claim into her insurer for your losses (premium increase).

Stay.

Postal vote, so little chance of not casting it.

A major problem is that the people making the laws have the capability to pay the extroniate premium holiday price in the school holidays…so those making the laws have little understanding of the dilemma poorer families have….

A holiday to Disneyland (or even somewhere a plane trip away) is not a right. Parents should book the holidays that they can afford, not the holidays that they want.

When I was younger, we had little money and our holidays (not in term time) were affordable ones. Often under canvas. Now I have children of my own, we are better off than my parents were so the holidays are nicer but we still work to the constraint of what we can afford.

Some segments of society seem to have lost sight of living within your means and now want to live within their desires (whether they have the money or now).

Sending your child to school is entirely optional. There is no law mandating it. If you choose to send your child to school, then they should attend school and abide by the rules. If you do not like those rules, you can always home school them.

Plane needs a helmet cam. Then we can have angry pilots on youtube complaining about not enough space being left.

NHS mail is encrypted, to “UK government standards”, whatever that is.

The entire civil service is rated for Official Sensitive classified material so it is probably the same infrastructure. The “last leg” is not encrypted but server to server stuff for intranet email addresses is (provided it never leaves the domain – out into the internet is sent cleartext)

Hunger games arena.