This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- how to study for national 5 English
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Dentistry Backups?
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- University Admissions Advice
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- is common law at Glasgow competitive?
Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by DorianGrayism
Ireland : 45000 euros
UK: 28000 Euros.
http://www.eudebtclock.org/
No, France and Germany both have higher national debts than the UK. France has a slightly higher DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION. Germany has a slightly lower DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
I really don't know where you are getting your information from.
It is affected by the size of the economy. Larger economies can borrow more. Especially those that can print their money. That is why Japan has a huge DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
UK: 28000 Euros.
http://www.eudebtclock.org/
No, France and Germany both have higher national debts than the UK. France has a slightly higher DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION. Germany has a slightly lower DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
I really don't know where you are getting your information from.
It is affected by the size of the economy. Larger economies can borrow more. Especially those that can print their money. That is why Japan has a huge DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
I like the debt clock app.
maths tutor might like to see this one as well. It's the cost of borrowing. The lower the yield the cheaper it is to borrow money.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-bond-10y
Original post by Maths Tutor
[3 weeks ago]
Article dated Wednesday 5 December 2012.
"Scotland's allocation under the so-called Barnett formula will receive an increase of £331m over two years"
WILL RECEIVE OVER TWO YEARS.
How much of the money has been received already and when was it received?
Article dated Wednesday 5 December 2012.
"Scotland's allocation under the so-called Barnett formula will receive an increase of £331m over two years"
WILL RECEIVE OVER TWO YEARS.
How much of the money has been received already and when was it received?
Original post by Midlander
[2 weeks ago]
I was in fact referring to money allocated prior to this.
I was in fact referring to money allocated prior to this.
Original post by Maths Tutor
[Today]
You have evaded the point and tried to distort.
I also note your deafening silence on your repeated attacks on the SNP government for not spending funds it had not even received.
You have evaded the point and tried to distort.
I also note your deafening silence on your repeated attacks on the SNP government for not spending funds it had not even received.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Midlander has already answered that for you.
are you hoping that people will just read the last page and hope that they'll take whats on your post is truthful.
are you hoping that people will just read the last page and hope that they'll take whats on your post is truthful.
I am not, but YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE.
Show me where Midlander has specified which funds he was referring to: "I was in fact referring to money allocated prior to this", when they were received, when they were spent or whether they remain unspent.
I have exposed enough of your lies and distortions yet you keep on repeating them, so no point in replying to you any more. Just like the lies and scaremongering of the 'Bitter Together' anti-Independence Axis. Apparently it was a Nazi who said that if you repeat lies often enough and loudly enough, people will start believing them. Thanks to the internet, that is no longer the case.
Once more I have to repeat:
Original post by Maths Tutor
That is the DELIBERATE TACTIC of the likes of L i b, MatureStudent36 and Midlander.
They resort to BLATANT LIES and DISTORTION to REPEAT their DEBUNKED comments NUMEROUS TIMES.
They resort to BLATANT LIES and DISTORTION to REPEAT their DEBUNKED comments NUMEROUS TIMES.
Despite repeatedly claiming that the pro-Independence vote has been "STUCK" at 30% for the last 30 years, you are so terrified of a YES vote on 18th September 2014 that you spend every spare second of your time on propagating lies and distortions on this blog.
It defies all logic for someone CONVINCED that the pro-independence vote 'has been stuck at 30% for 30 years and not going up' to waste so much time on this blog.
If I was convinced that the No vote had been stuck at 30% for the last 30 years and was not going up, I wouldn't spend much time arguing with the 'losing' side.
Could you perhaps admit that you are TERRIFIED that the pro-independence vote COULD INDEED go up from the 'stuck for 30 years' 30% to 50%+1 in the one and a half years to 18th September 2014?
You have already implied your FEAR by claiming that "nobody wants this --- referendum" despite the fact that 47% of voters voted for the SNP knowing perfectly well that if the SNP won there would be a referendum on independence. For your information, 53% IS NOT EQUAL TO 'Nobody'
Original post by MatureStudent36
I really can't make it any more straight forward than this. It fluctuates but hovers at 30%
It fluctuates but hovers at 30% = STUCK at 30% ???
Going up to 40% and down to 20% = STUCK at 30% ???
Waiting for your hero Lib to agree with you.
Original post by Maths Tutor
I am not, but YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE.
Show me where Midlander has specified which funds he was referring to: "I was in fact referring to money allocated prior to this", when they were received, when they were spent or whether they remain unspent.
I have exposed enough of your lies and distortions yet you keep on repeating them, so no point in replying to you any more. Just like the lies and scaremongering of the 'Bitter Together' anti-Independence Axis. Apparently it was a Nazi who said that if you repeat lies often enough and loudly enough, people will start believing them. Thanks to the internet, that is no longer the case.
Once more I have to repeat:
Despite repeatedly claiming that the pro-Independence vote has been "STUCK" at 30% for the last 30 years, you are so terrified of a YES vote on 18th September 2014 that you spend every spare second of your time on propagating lies and distortions on this blog.
It defies all logic for someone CONVINCED that the pro-independence vote 'has been stuck at 30% for 30 years and not going up' to waste so much time on this blog.
If I was convinced that the No vote had been stuck at 30% for the last 30 years and was not going up, I wouldn't spend much time arguing with the 'losing' side.
Could you perhaps admit that you are TERRIFIED that the pro-independence vote COULD INDEED go up from the 'stuck for 30 years' 30% to 50%+1 in the one and a half years to 18th September 2014?
You have already implied your FEAR by claiming that "nobody wants this --- referendum" despite the fact that 47% of voters voted for the SNP knowing perfectly well that if the SNP won there would be a referendum on independence. For your information, 53% IS NOT EQUAL TO 'Nobody'
Show me where Midlander has specified which funds he was referring to: "I was in fact referring to money allocated prior to this", when they were received, when they were spent or whether they remain unspent.
I have exposed enough of your lies and distortions yet you keep on repeating them, so no point in replying to you any more. Just like the lies and scaremongering of the 'Bitter Together' anti-Independence Axis. Apparently it was a Nazi who said that if you repeat lies often enough and loudly enough, people will start believing them. Thanks to the internet, that is no longer the case.
Once more I have to repeat:
Despite repeatedly claiming that the pro-Independence vote has been "STUCK" at 30% for the last 30 years, you are so terrified of a YES vote on 18th September 2014 that you spend every spare second of your time on propagating lies and distortions on this blog.
It defies all logic for someone CONVINCED that the pro-independence vote 'has been stuck at 30% for 30 years and not going up' to waste so much time on this blog.
If I was convinced that the No vote had been stuck at 30% for the last 30 years and was not going up, I wouldn't spend much time arguing with the 'losing' side.
Could you perhaps admit that you are TERRIFIED that the pro-independence vote COULD INDEED go up from the 'stuck for 30 years' 30% to 50%+1 in the one and a half years to 18th September 2014?
You have already implied your FEAR by claiming that "nobody wants this --- referendum" despite the fact that 47% of voters voted for the SNP knowing perfectly well that if the SNP won there would be a referendum on independence. For your information, 53% IS NOT EQUAL TO 'Nobody'
my my. You are shouty tonight. So just to double check. 50ish % of the electorate voted for the SNP knowing this would happen, yet support for separation is back down to 30%. Why did so many people vote for the SNP and not back separation?
i spend time on here because nationalism in any form scares me. So far I've heard terminology used that doesn't support your narrow outlook on the world as. Anti scottish, quisling, traitor, rogue, scaremongerer et al.
if you want to talk about deception lets talk about.
our entry into Europe.
our fudged NHS Scotland waiting times.
The assumption about the economy and currency.
not being in NATO and the U turn.
the assumption that everything will carry in as normal.
my vote apparently doesn't count in Westminster.
I've so far been promised tax cuts, increased government spending and even free television over the past few months.
believe it or not, many if us can identify as being Scottish and British, just as others can also identify with being female, black, gay, Jew etc. as well as being scottish/ British.
Nobody wants this referendum as polling results since 1979 have never shown majority support once. The only way that the SNP can achieve this is by trying to stir up more resentment through the use of its cyber trolls and anything that needs to highlight divisions on perceived cultural differences will only end up with idiots on both side of the border winding each other up.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Maths Tutor
UK subsidises Scotland = UK would be better off without Scotland.
Why don't you reply to the point made by rmpr97: "The UK does not need Scotland in the slightest, in fact, the UK will probably be more economically efficient without having to pay for the subsidy Scotland receives."
Again I have to repeat:
Why don't you reply to the point made by rmpr97: "The UK does not need Scotland in the slightest, in fact, the UK will probably be more economically efficient without having to pay for the subsidy Scotland receives."
Again I have to repeat:
You're the one using the language of subsidy, not me. For my part, I believe that Scotland is a net contributer some years and a net receipient other years. This is quite clearly a normal part of being a normal country.
But yes, you've clearly ignored the substantive points of my post because they don't suit your simplistic analysis. Oh, and by the by, the same points I made about writing in caps lock apply to superfluous bolding of text.
Original post by Maths Tutor
I HAVE NEVER MADE ANY SUCH ANALYSIS OR COMMENT.
Once more I have to repeat:
Once more I have to repeat:
Yes you have. You did it clearly in the post I quoted. You suggested that the benefit or detriment of Scotland remaining in the UK could be measured in strictly financial terms.
If you're going to behave this way, I'm not even sure what you hope to gain from this discussion. You're being rude and abusive without any cause for it.
Original post by Maths Tutor
Could you at least ask your hero Lib to categorically agree with your above statement.
I'm not some sort of research body here to add verification to either your arguments or other people's. I'm here to make my own arguments. For my part, I find polling extraordinarily uninteresting beyond very broad general trends. What I will say if that I find it extremely difficult to imagine the Nationalists could conceivably turn around a poll lead of that nature on an issue which people already have largely entrenched opinions about, particularly given the effort they have made to win hearts and minds over the course of many years.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by stravagante
Although I'm not an expert on the issue, the whole argument about the dates of the referendum have been smartly done by the "No" campaigners. Personally, whether the Conservatives were re-elected down south would play a massive part in it for me. The threat of the benefit cuts and NHS cuts happening up here as they have in England is a decision maker I think.
Er... the NHS in England is not being cut. Its budget was adjusted to increase in real terms every year of the current parliament. In Scotland that is also happening, however to a lesser degree - and full Barnett conseqentials from spending increases on health in England have not been passed on to the NHS in Scotland. That's entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government.
Virtually all benefits changes apply equally in England and Scotland. Welfare is a reserved issue.
Original post by DorianGrayism
You will need to quote official UK and Ireland government figures.
Original post by DorianGrayism
No, France and Germany both have higher national debts than the UK. France has a slightly higher DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION. Germany has a slightly lower DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
No, France and Germany both have higher national debts than the UK. France has a slightly higher DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION. Germany has a slightly lower DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
Only PER HEAD is a meaningful comparison. You will have to quote French and German government figures to prove that.
Original post by DorianGrayism
I really don't know where you are getting your information from.
It is affected by the size of the economy. Larger economies can borrow more. Especially those that can print their money. That is why Japan has a huge DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
It is affected by the size of the economy. Larger economies can borrow more. Especially those that can print their money. That is why Japan has a huge DEBT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
It is the STATE and TYPE of the economy that matters NOT size: how much is raised in taxes and how much is spent on public services PER HEAD, the difference being the deficit which builds up into the national debt.
It is higher taxes and less or more efficient public services that result in a lower national debt.
Would you not expect public services in countries like the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands to be broadly similar?
Also would the average tax revenue PER HEAD not be broadly similar?
But how much PER HEAD did Ireland spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on Nuclear Weapons?
Compare that with how much PER HEAD the UK spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on Nuclear Weapons. Where did all that money come from? Certainly not from high taxes - big companies pay very little tax in the UK.
What revenues and public expenditure were reported in Ireland for the last year? What was the deficit and what was it PER HEAD?
Original post by L i b
You're the one using the language of subsidy, not me. For my part, I believe that Scotland is a net contributer some years and a net receipient other years. This is quite clearly a normal part of being a normal country.
But yes, you've clearly ignored the substantive points of my post because they don't suit your simplistic analysis. Oh, and by the by, the same points I made about writing in caps lock apply to superfluous bolding of text.
Yes you have. You did it clearly in the post I quoted. You suggested that the benefit or detriment of Scotland remaining in the UK could be measured in strictly financial terms.
If you're going to behave this way, I'm not even sure what you hope to gain from this discussion. You're being rude and abusive without any cause for it.
I'm not some sort of research body here to add verification to either your arguments or other people's. I'm here to make my own arguments. For my part, I find polling extraordinarily uninteresting beyond very broad general trends. What I will say if that I find it extremely difficult to imagine the Nationalists could conceivably turn around a poll lead of that nature on an issue which people already have largely entrenched opinions about, particularly given the effort they have made to win hearts and minds over the course of many years.
But yes, you've clearly ignored the substantive points of my post because they don't suit your simplistic analysis. Oh, and by the by, the same points I made about writing in caps lock apply to superfluous bolding of text.
Yes you have. You did it clearly in the post I quoted. You suggested that the benefit or detriment of Scotland remaining in the UK could be measured in strictly financial terms.
If you're going to behave this way, I'm not even sure what you hope to gain from this discussion. You're being rude and abusive without any cause for it.
I'm not some sort of research body here to add verification to either your arguments or other people's. I'm here to make my own arguments. For my part, I find polling extraordinarily uninteresting beyond very broad general trends. What I will say if that I find it extremely difficult to imagine the Nationalists could conceivably turn around a poll lead of that nature on an issue which people already have largely entrenched opinions about, particularly given the effort they have made to win hearts and minds over the course of many years.
What a LIAR and DISTORTER.
I had pointed out very clearly who had made the subsidy comment:
"Why don't you reply to the point made by rmpr97: "The UK does not need Scotland in the slightest, in fact, the UK will probably be more economically efficient without having to pay for the subsidy Scotland receives."
Original post by Maths Tutor
You will need to quote official UK and Ireland government figures.
Only PER HEAD is a meaningful comparison. You will have to quote French and German government figures to prove that.
Only PER HEAD is a meaningful comparison. You will have to quote French and German government figures to prove that.
What is wrong with these figures?
Original post by Maths Tutor
It is the STATE and TYPE of the economy that matters NOT size: how much is raised in taxes and how much is spent on public services PER HEAD, the difference being the deficit which builds up into the national debt.
It is the STATE and TYPE of the economy that matters NOT size: how much is raised in taxes and how much is spent on public services PER HEAD, the difference being the deficit which builds up into the national debt.
Well, the size does matter. That is why Japan can borrow more per head than say Uganda and have a good credit rating.
It is the same reason why you can have a higher debt per head than a poorer person in India.
I see Maths Tutor has gone silent on his praise of the Greek economy. Guess it can't be that strong after all.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Midlander
I see Maths Tutor has gone silent on his praise of the Greek economy. Guess it can't be that strong after all.
He also hasn't responded to my questions as to why he thinks Scots have higher status than other Britons, despite a reminder, or my other points. I don't suppose he will.
He seems to be consumed with anger about independence matters and his rationality is in doubt. That he keeps harping on about the poll figures (which do show a remarkable long term stability around the 30% in favour mark) and entirely misses the point that minor fluctuations are irrelevant and meaningless, and within the margin for error of the polls, shows he has lost sight of what the main issues are.
His obsession with one misleading economic measure (per capita GDP) to the exclusion of more important ones (such as debt to GDP ratio) shows he doesn't grasp the economic issues very well.
Original post by Good bloke
He also hasn't responded to my questions as to why he thinks Scots have higher status than other Britons, despite a reminder, or my other points. I don't suppose he will.
He seems to be consumed with anger about independence matters and his rationality is in doubt. That he keeps harping on about the poll figures (which do show a remarkable long term stability around the 30% in favour mark) and entirely misses the point that minor fluctuations are irrelevant and meaningless, and within the margin for error of the polls, shows he has lost sight of what the main issues are.
His obsession with one misleading economic measure (per capita GDP) to the exclusion of more important ones (such as debt to GDP ratio) shows he doesn't grasp the economic issues very well.
He seems to be consumed with anger about independence matters and his rationality is in doubt. That he keeps harping on about the poll figures (which do show a remarkable long term stability around the 30% in favour mark) and entirely misses the point that minor fluctuations are irrelevant and meaningless, and within the margin for error of the polls, shows he has lost sight of what the main issues are.
His obsession with one misleading economic measure (per capita GDP) to the exclusion of more important ones (such as debt to GDP ratio) shows he doesn't grasp the economic issues very well.
When's the next plane to Athens? Perhaps MT could get a one way ticket.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Maths Tutor
What a LIAR and DISTORTER.
I had pointed out very clearly who had made the subsidy comment:
"Why don't you reply to the point made by rmpr97: "The UK does not need Scotland in the slightest, in fact, the UK will probably be more economically efficient without having to pay for the subsidy Scotland receives."
I had pointed out very clearly who had made the subsidy comment:
"Why don't you reply to the point made by rmpr97: "The UK does not need Scotland in the slightest, in fact, the UK will probably be more economically efficient without having to pay for the subsidy Scotland receives."
Can you try and raise your game a little please. It doesn't help your cause and just perpetuates the myth that separatists are a little over emotional. Emotions don't pay the bills.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Maths Tutor
For the sake of accuracy and completeness you should:
.
.
For the sake of cherry picking?
Are you incapable of doing your own research? You make ludicrous claims without evidence then expect other people to back it up. Unfortunately for you, your point has been shown to be false.
Original post by FinalMH
For the sake of cherry picking?
Are you incapable of doing your own research? You make ludicrous claims without evidence then expect other people to back it up. Unfortunately for you, your point has been shown to be false.
Are you incapable of doing your own research? You make ludicrous claims without evidence then expect other people to back it up. Unfortunately for you, your point has been shown to be false.
He does do research. But the research consists of cut and paste from three nationalist websites that are all run by the same organisation to give the impression of 3rd person endorsement.
He then claims the main stream media is against his cause because they critique the statements and find gaping holes in the argument. A more recent example has been the alleged second oil boom that has now well and truly been de bunked.
he seems to forget that 70% of us can be both proud Scots and members of the Uk.
Original post by MatureStudent36
He does do research. But the research consists of cut and paste from three nationalist websites that are all run by the same organisation to give the impression of 3rd person endorsement.
He then claims the main stream media is against his cause because they critique the statements and find gaping holes in the argument. A more recent example has been the alleged second oil boom that has now well and truly been de bunked.
he seems to forget that 70% of us can be both proud Scots and members of the Uk.
He then claims the main stream media is against his cause because they critique the statements and find gaping holes in the argument. A more recent example has been the alleged second oil boom that has now well and truly been de bunked.
he seems to forget that 70% of us can be both proud Scots and members of the Uk.
oh right. Sorry Maths Tutor. 
I just found it annoying, him asking me and someone else to provide research to back up his claim.If he was do that for politics essay, then he would more then certainly fail.
(edited 11 years ago)
A right for a country to be able to self-determine it's future. I think that alone makes it a good thing.
The policies of the UK Gov be it Labour or the Coalition have been geared towards the economy of the South East of England. I cannot see this changing in the future.
So go for it Scotland, you may never ever get a chance like this again....
The policies of the UK Gov be it Labour or the Coalition have been geared towards the economy of the South East of England. I cannot see this changing in the future.
So go for it Scotland, you may never ever get a chance like this again....
Original post by L i b
Er... the NHS in England is not being cut. Its budget was adjusted to increase in real terms every year of the current parliament. In Scotland that is also happening, however to a lesser degree - and full Barnett conseqentials from spending increases on health in England have not been passed on to the NHS in Scotland. That's entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government.
Virtually all benefits changes apply equally in England and Scotland. Welfare is a reserved issue.
Virtually all benefits changes apply equally in England and Scotland. Welfare is a reserved issue.
Cuts need not necessarily mean financial cuts. There are cuts happening in the NHS in England- some treatment is now going to be provided by a private company. To me, this is a cut in the NHS (maybe not a cut in the budget, but a cut in what the 'main' NHS provides).
Original post by UnderPost
There are cuts happening in the NHS in England- some treatment is now going to be provided by a private company. To me, this is a cut in the NHS (maybe not a cut in the budget, but a cut in what the 'main' NHS provides).
Perhaps you don't realise that most GPs are private companies and not NHS employees - and always have been. Does this make their service any less competent or valuable?
Original post by Good bloke
Perhaps you don't realise that most GPs are private companies and not NHS employees - and always have been. Does this make their service any less competent or valuable?
GPs never have been NHS employees.
The difference is I CHOOSE my GP. If I don't like his/her style then I can go to another one.
The current "buying of services" within the NHS in England means that if X Ltd "bought" the services of let's say, chiropody from my local NHS trust and I went in for this- I would have no choice but to have that service from that company.
But raising GPs is a good point to raise. In 2004, despite health being devolved- the UK Gov created a new contract for GPs. This new contract meant that they worked less and got new money. This has been imposed on the NHS in Wales (and I'm assuming Scotland, too)- yet it was a British Minister for Health that dealt with it. Had Wales been independent, this crazy decision would never have been made.
If you don't believe me, this is what GPs said: "GPs were so stunned by the terms offered to them when negotiating their new contract that they thought it was a "bit of a laugh""
A decision which is now irreversible - which GP would agree to go back to the old one.
I just feel that because the British State is so centralised in London (yes, even more so than a massive country like the US). They are unable to micro manage anything and so decisions are done quickly without calculation.
I personally feel that smaller countries are able to micro manage better- which is why I feel local councils should have more of a say.
Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- how to study for national 5 English
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Dentistry Backups?
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- University Admissions Advice
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- is common law at Glasgow competitive?
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 5 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 minutes ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 16 minutes ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 18 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 20 minutes ago
planning to retake my levels and apply to UBC/UoT/Mcgill for life scienceLast reply 20 minutes ago
how to get to winchester school of art from southampton on a daily basis.Trending
Last reply 53 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 53 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
