-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Oldham.
I'd be fat/dead if it had stayed open whilst I was at college there. I wouldn't even be mad.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I just had a Subway at lunchtime
The chicken tikka sandwich supposedly has 311 calories. Probably better than a Marks & Spencer sandwich I guess.
Damn that sounds tasty. I had a jacket potato with a medium rare seared tuna steak and side salad from our canteen for lunch. Pretty tasty, but I would have taken yours any day.
Z
ZombieFred
Unconfirmed Member
I've been quite satisfied with the biscuits and unlimited fill of water from the machine here at work (school), outside some lovely made pasta and then the crappy frozen meals at the moment. I honestly can't wait to become independant again when I rent into my new place and cook fresh food and become a little chef again.
No it would be fun seeing all the bull crap the SNP have been feeding the Scottish about how much better they'd be without the rest of the UK turning out to be just that, bull crap
No you are ignorant, splitting from the rest of the UK is a big FUCK YOU and will be perceived as such by the average English person. It is 100% bound to lead to a rise in English nationalism. The English will be in no mood to do the Scottish any favors, if you think otherwise you are naive, call it spurned lover syndrome, its basically human nature. maybe in a generation or two, people will have forgotten or not care.
Who feeds you this crap, you haven't been listening to Alex Salmond have you? Think about it of the shoe was on the other foot, quite frankly I think most will want to see the Scottish "were better without you" project fail miserably.
Given how much better Scotland is under the SNP, I think you'll be waiting a long time to see them fail.
I think the average English person just wants what's best for the average English person. I don't know anyone who really begrudges the Scottish for what they have - rather they want the same powers here.
Good! There's nothing wrong with English nationalism! We've been asked to suppress it for so long that we could do with a healthy bout of it. Nationalism doesn't mean you hate your neighbours.
They *are* better without us. And we're better without them. You're a moron if you think that this is about Scots hating English or English hating Scots. It's not. It's about recognising, like adults, that there our social environments are too different to effectively constrain within a single state. That's it.
Scotland will make the money back from all the oil they'll be selling to the rest of the UK.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
No Scots allowed.
J Tourettes
Banned
Mek it then.
It's a transnational institution. They got bailed out by the US as well. It's little to do with where you're based and more to do with where you operate.
Sure, but I expect Mr. Salmond would like to skim some of their earnings for taxation regardless. The employment and finance hole that would otherwise need to have been plugged would not have been a UK taxpayer problem in those circumstances.
J Tourettes
Banned
I suppose I'll link it for you.
UK THREAD IS HERE! HIP HIP HOORAY! http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=460373
I actually don't know either way, but I'd imagine that there are a fair number of RBS employees in England. And governments bailout banks usually to protect the customers. If we were talking about a bank that did nothing but serve Scottish domestic savers... well that's one thing.
English Nationalism is invariably all about hating your neighbours, and has been for centuries. See: The Hundred Years War, The War of the Roses, all our conflicts with France and Spain (and Scotland!) over the last millennium over religion, etc. And yes, I'm aware that the British Empire was established after the Act of Union, but everyone knows that was a primarily English project.
That's why I'm against Scottish independence - not because the Scots shouldn't decide their own path, but because the traditional English hatred of outsiders needs to be harshly constrained, and IMO we need the Scots to do that. Let them have Devo Max and tax-raising powers all they want, but the Union must remain intact, for all our sakes.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Not only that, Lloyds TSB wouldn't have been forced down the aisle by a certain Mr Brown to bail out HBOS (another Scots bank).
If Lloyds didn't merge with HBOS our bank think they would not have tapped the government's asset protection scheme or need recapitalisation. HBOS otoh would be 90% government owned.
In all of this Salmond and the SNP have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer on their currency and other monetary policies. Using the pound is fine, we can't stop them, it is a fully tradeable currency and recognised as a world reserve currency, any nation is free to adopt it unilaterally. However, the latest rubbish is that Salmond still expects the BoE and HMT to backstop the Scottish government, and for the BoE to act as a lender of last resort for Scottish banks. There is literally no chance of that happening, I asked our policy director whether he had any info from the BoE on this arrangement, lets just say there is more chance of me going to the moon than there is of the BoE backstopping banks outside of the union.
Anyway, even though Fragula continually says that Scotland would automatically be part of the EU, the practicalities are not that simple. The treaties signed by Westminster pertain to the United Kingdom, if Scotland were to leave the UK there is a good chance they would have to petition the EU for entry, which is fine, they would be given it. The catch is that all new entrants to the EU are obligated to join the Euro at some stage and this means entering ERMII. For that to happen Scotland needs its own currency and own central bank, I highly doubt the BoE would join ERMII on Scotland's behalf and damage the economy of the UK in the process.
The problem is that Salmond can't very well tell Scottish people that they are going to have to give up the pound for Mcpounds and damage the economy in the process. That also makes the assumption that Scottish people want to join the Euro, I mean one would have to be insane to join the Euro now. People say Scotland could use the Swedish arrangement and just not meet the ERMII criteria, but EU officials are extremely irritated by it and given the chance they would go back and make Sweden's EU entry negotiations tougher to force them into ERMII and the Euro. I very much doubt Scotland would be afforded the same entry criteria as Sweden which means they would be compelled to join the Euro as part of their entry conditions to the EU. The EU needed Sweden much more than they need Scotland so their bargaining position would be much, much weaker.
Onto the oil, Scotland's strong point, yes, they have got oil reserves and yes, it gives them a decent level of tax income for very little public expenditure. However, that is a short term policy (when talking about nation states, 20 years of oil revenue isn't something to build a nation on) and Scotland needs to start looking how it will fund itself without the Barnet settlement, and how it will fund debt repayments and refinancing when it takes its share of the national debt. I don't think RBS and HBOS will remain in Edinburgh, if Scotland goes independent there is no way that Edinburgh could stand behind either of those banks without facing an Irish style bailout (but the who would bail them out? Not the BoE) so both banks would move to London and we would be lumbered with the debts, for sure. Either way Scotland would still have to take on its share of the PSNDex which as we just saw, passed £1tn last month. Depending on how the settlement is made that could leave Scotland with debts ranging from £80bn all the way up to £150bn.
All in all, the Scottish independence mechanics are extremely complex. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, if they go independent, that's fine, if they don't that's also fine. I don't really like this Devomax idea, but I'm open to it if there is a reasonable settlement for England and Wales. The sooner we get Scottish MPs out of the HoC the better.
Those weren't national conflicts though; they were initiated in the age of feudalism, as conflicts between houses and lines.
And the Empire was mostly a commercial endeavour.
I think that's a pessimistic view of ourselves. And counter-productive. If anything the Union encourages a lingering Great Power view being maintained.
killer_clank
Member
CHEEZMO;34585230 said:
Allowed until independence day. Then I'll create ScotGAF and we can talk about our favourite thing to deep fry all day long.
or just argue, shoot up heroin and then say casually racist shit and then immediately apologise and say that they're alreet really
killer_clank
Member
I can see why Salmond's not advocating it, but I think we should just use sterling for a limited changeover period and then launch our own currency. Any thoughts?
And as for the EU, it is slightly unknown territory. No EU nation has split up in this way but just playing devil's advocate here since no one knows for sure the legal position (the eu really should just say) we are already in the EU, with treaty obligations and the like. Are they gonna just chuck is out and ask for us to reapply?
School Tables came out today, and I know to take them with a pinch of salt but one school in Poole got only 3% of pupils with 5 good GCSEs. There's apparently 500 at the school. 3% what happened there?!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16729490
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16729490
zomgbbqftw
Banned
That makes sense, but Salmond needs to spell that out before going to the electorate, it would be extremely unfair to say they will keep the pound and then watch the BoE and Treasury tell them to fuck off when Scotland finds it can't borrow at 2.1% like the UK.
That's why I think Salmond going around assuring everyone that Scotland remains part of the EU is wrong. He needs written assurances from the EU confirming Scotland's status post union. The technicalities as our bank sees it is that the UK is part of the EU but none of the countries inside the UK are part of the EU as separate entities, if any country were to leave the union the EU might require a petition of entry. The EU haven't denied this, nor have they confirmed it, but our sources seem to indicate that any country who leaves the UK would be required to petition to join the EU, but entrance would not be difficult.
That brings us back to the currency, the EU have been extremely strict ever since Sweden, Denmark and UK got opt outs of the EMU. No country that wants to join the EU will receive an opt out of the Euro, that is for certain. Take a look at Croatia (a similarly sized country), they received no special assurances about not having to join the Euro and I don't see how Scotland can claim to have an opt out. The UK has a perpetual opt out of the EMU as guaranteed by the Treaties, but Scotland is not a signatory of any of those Treaties, the UK is.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
DeathIsTheEnd
Member
killer_clank
Member
If Belgium, for example, broke up, is it really possible that they would be kicked out and have to reapply? really? As for the Euro, not 100% on this one but upon entry to the EU currently, you're expected to join the currenc eventually, but can't you just refuse to join ERM II or just never meet the requirements for doing so?
I suspect part of the problem regarding the legal facts is that the EU themselves don't know what would happen since it's never been an issue before.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Well the Swedish model of not joining ERMII has been eradicated by the EU, any new entrant to the EU must also agree to join ERMII on a timetable to be agreed with the EU before entry and the petitioning nation will be bound by these agreements on entering the EU. Reneging on the agreements will see the nations expelled or face serious single market sanctions.
On the legalities, you're probably right, but since when have the EU ever been fair handed, if they can see a method where they can extract concessions from a petitioning nation they will use it.
So, the RBS CEO gets a nearly £1 million bonus, despite the bank being mostly taxpayer-owned, and also despite Cameron promising new executive pay restraint regulations.
Also, I like how the Government denied that they could do anything about it, only to be contradicted by some financial experts a few hours later. Saw it on Channel 4 News, ridiculous.
Ladies and gentlemen, David Cameron - well, he's loyal to his real friends, at least.
As for whether the CEO deserves his payday or not, I don't really care - it just looks so bad.
Also, I like how the Government denied that they could do anything about it, only to be contradicted by some financial experts a few hours later. Saw it on Channel 4 News, ridiculous.
Ladies and gentlemen, David Cameron - well, he's loyal to his real friends, at least.
As for whether the CEO deserves his payday or not, I don't really care - it just looks so bad.
Can we just call Miliband's opposition Labour cabinet (Balls too, ugh) the worst since early/mid 2000s Conservatives, maybe under Duncan Smith?
I can't see him making it until 2015, if Labour are wise they'll chuck him out and have a leadership contest so that the public can get familiar with them in time for the 2015 elections.
Get a new leader and replace Balls with Umunna
I can't see him making it until 2015, if Labour are wise they'll chuck him out and have a leadership contest so that the public can get familiar with them in time for the 2015 elections.
Get a new leader and replace Balls with Umunna
killer_clank
Member
oh miliband. he might have a vaguely good point but he should let a junior shadow minister deal with that and not frame it with chocolate fucking oranges. good god. he and his party should have higher priorities than that crap. what a terrible, terrible opposition.
and labour don't replace leaders until they lose or have a scandal. miliband will be there next election i suspect, and as things stand he'll be defeated overwhemingly.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Firstly, on the subject of his remuneration - Hester has done a decent job, he took a bank that was basically bankrupt and brought it back to life. No easy task, that's for sure. If the government want to have anything of worth at the end of the banking rehabilitation programme then they need people like him to fix the bank. I don't think cash bonuses need to be as large as the one paid out, but that is just my personal view and not one that is common in the banking and finance sector, though it has started to change recently.
Second, on the subject of his contract - When RBS was nationalised and a new CEO sought to fix what Fred ruined decent terms had to be offered to an incoming CEO. Hester took the job on and signed a contract. To row back on a contractual obligation would open the government up to a law suit which Hester would likely win and mean searching for a new CEO for RBS, but the search would be even harder because of any breaking of terms by the government on any contractual obligations.
Thirdly, on Labour's rank opportunism - They nationalised RBS. They signed the bill into law. They were in control over everything. They approved Hester's contract. The two Eds are in no position to cry about Hester's bonus, Labour approved it when they recruited him (or at least ordered UKFI to do so on their behalf). If the disagreed with his cash bonuses, they should have said so in 2008/9 when they had the opportunity to change it, instead they passed the buck and blamed the UKFI CEO of the day. It's much like the government selling Northern Rock to Virgin Money, Labour protested it and screamed about how the government were looking after their friends in the City, but it was they who signed us up to sell NR before the end of March 2012. That this government could find a buyer was a minor miracle, but really NR should have remained in government hands until at least 2013 and the buyer should have had to take on a much larger amount of badly performing loans as part of the deal. Instead Labour were short sighted and signed up to some crazy EU timetable that forced a sale before the end of March 2012.
There is a lot we can all blame this government for, I personally blame them for not getting tough on tax evasion and benefit fraud and for being too easy going about capital investment from private companies, but the state of the nation's finances and the state of our banking sector are not areas where they deserve any of the stick they are currently receiving. Turning the inherited situation around will not happen overnight, it won't happen in a year, or even five years. The fiscal consolidation and banking reforms will take ten years before they have any real effect, it's going to be a long haul, but I have plenty of faith that we will see it through and come out of the other side stronger.
J Tourettes
Banned
Same here, I was expecting it to be attributed to Alan Partridge.
So...
- In opposition David Cameron criticised the government of the day that chocolate was being discounted rather than fruit.
- Six years later no action has been taken.
- Miliband doesn't agree that public money should be spent on a private yacht for The Inbreds.
Did I miss something?
Jezbollah
Member
Ed Milliband has just stated on Sky News that Stephen Hester's Bonus should have been blocked by the Government.
And there we have in one clear example the sheer hypocrisy of Ed Milliband and the Labour Party - criticizing the government for not stopping what they themselves caused. It's like hearing all about the deficit cuts moaning.
This party will never be elected with their current shadow cabinet. It need a complete purge. Then they might be taken seriously.
And there we have in one clear example the sheer hypocrisy of Ed Milliband and the Labour Party - criticizing the government for not stopping what they themselves caused. It's like hearing all about the deficit cuts moaning.
This party will never be elected with their current shadow cabinet. It need a complete purge. Then they might be taken seriously.
For RBS though this is terrible PR. If another bank (and we all know of a certain bank by a company that likes to be seen as a bit edgy) were to start a campaign advertising how easy it is to switch banks account to them and that bonuses are given to the customers I wouldn't be surprised if people started leaving RBS in disgust. Is there even anything to stop them mentioning RBS by name like how washing detergents firms have to refer to competitors as "other leading brands"?
Speedymanic
Banned
I've seen this mentioned a few times and I can't help but wonder why the Government can't renegotiate the contract/bonus?
They've been more than happy to force agreed contractual changes on public workers with regards to pensions, etc, so why is this such a special case? The bank is basically own by the Government, so why aren't they forcing a change on the boss as they've been attempting to/succeeded in doing with all other public workers.
Let's not forget the pension contracts were also signed under the last Government and this Government sees them as unsustainable, so why not apply the same thinking to this bonus/contract.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Looks like the government are going to attack the unions on facility time and collection of dues via payslips.
The Trade Union Reform Campaign (TURC) group, headed up by Tory MPs (some of whom have made their names mud in recent months), has been set up with the blessing of Cameron himself. Its purpose is to 'research' and campaign against the Unions and attack the way they currently work in government departments. Essentially, it's a very biased mini-think-tank, and it's going to put out an appropriately biased paper at some point which will no doubt form the basis for government attacks.
At present, Employee Relations staff can apply for up to 1-50% of their time to be taken as facility time: ie. allotted time to undertake union duties... it has to be agreed by their employer and delegated finance controller, and duties usually consist of looking after employee welfare (mediation in disputes - trying to avoid expensive tribunals, mediation with ATOS healthcare for those with problems, etc) and other TU duties. This group are asking that this facility time be minimised or not paid for by the public purse. I agree with minimising facility time as much as possible, but I don't really understand why it's not being minimised already. It has to be agreed by the employer in the first instance... facility time has to be signed off on a periodic basis by line managers too.
I don't agree with not paying the employee for the time spent on TU duty. TU duties mostly cover things that the employer would have to deal with themselves otherwise -- I believe that there would be more staff churn, more sickness and more grievance cases going to tribunal if they didn't have TU reps to keep tabs on things and mediate / calm employee relations. Consultation periods with the Unions when big changes take place (such as bulk staff moves from city to city, as I have undergone this year) or mass redundancies (as are going to happen soon) are really valuable too. They ensure that nobody can claim they were treated unfairly or that they didn't have fair notice from their union. You can't expect these people to do the consultations, which are of mutual benefit, in their own time. Basically I think it's enough that the government is able to just ignore the Unions and condemn their striking -- they've rendered the Unions pretty ineffectual as it is... but attacking the good work they do might be a good way to make things worse.
Presently, the unions are paid by the PAYE system, their dues come straight out of employee wageslips. This reform group are suggesting that the government should charge the unions 20p per transaction. There's no administrative cost / legitimacy to that idea, it's just one that they're suggesting as a way to make some money on a service they currently offer for free. Effectively, the unions would have to take a cut in their revenues or put their members fees up.
Here's the skinny:
The Trade Union Reform Campaign (TURC) group, headed up by Tory MPs (some of whom have made their names mud in recent months), has been set up with the blessing of Cameron himself. Its purpose is to 'research' and campaign against the Unions and attack the way they currently work in government departments. Essentially, it's a very biased mini-think-tank, and it's going to put out an appropriately biased paper at some point which will no doubt form the basis for government attacks.
At present, Employee Relations staff can apply for up to 1-50% of their time to be taken as facility time: ie. allotted time to undertake union duties... it has to be agreed by their employer and delegated finance controller, and duties usually consist of looking after employee welfare (mediation in disputes - trying to avoid expensive tribunals, mediation with ATOS healthcare for those with problems, etc) and other TU duties. This group are asking that this facility time be minimised or not paid for by the public purse. I agree with minimising facility time as much as possible, but I don't really understand why it's not being minimised already. It has to be agreed by the employer in the first instance... facility time has to be signed off on a periodic basis by line managers too.
I don't agree with not paying the employee for the time spent on TU duty. TU duties mostly cover things that the employer would have to deal with themselves otherwise -- I believe that there would be more staff churn, more sickness and more grievance cases going to tribunal if they didn't have TU reps to keep tabs on things and mediate / calm employee relations. Consultation periods with the Unions when big changes take place (such as bulk staff moves from city to city, as I have undergone this year) or mass redundancies (as are going to happen soon) are really valuable too. They ensure that nobody can claim they were treated unfairly or that they didn't have fair notice from their union. You can't expect these people to do the consultations, which are of mutual benefit, in their own time. Basically I think it's enough that the government is able to just ignore the Unions and condemn their striking -- they've rendered the Unions pretty ineffectual as it is... but attacking the good work they do might be a good way to make things worse.
Presently, the unions are paid by the PAYE system, their dues come straight out of employee wageslips. This reform group are suggesting that the government should charge the unions 20p per transaction. There's no administrative cost / legitimacy to that idea, it's just one that they're suggesting as a way to make some money on a service they currently offer for free. Effectively, the unions would have to take a cut in their revenues or put their members fees up.
Here's the skinny:
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Where did that article come from, The Morning Star?
radioheadrule83
Banned
Yeah, I'm not a reader btw, it was sent to me. I pre-emptively agree that their bias stinks and is horribly obvious. That's why I laid out my own viewpoint ahead of the quotes.
Speedymanic
Banned
They could try to renegotiate the contract or does the renegotiation of already agreed and signed contracts only apply to other public sector workers?
Did Labour put in a clause that prohibits the current Gov from attempting to do so?