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
- University Admissions Advice
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- 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 Midlander
If you want these things you have to pay for them and in Denmark that is done with raised taxes. Given that any tax hike over here is met with wide disapproval any Scottish government will struggle to meet the costs of all their wild promises.
How are people against putting taxes up?
The way to fix the problem, is to fix the economy. We need to start building things in the country to create wealth. Margaret Thatcher got rid of all our manufacturing industries, and changed that to service sector. Manufacturing jobs are needed to create wealth from industrial production, where there are labour intensive jobs, and where there are loads of people in any one place, and where people make things that directly create wealth. Service sector jobs are not like that. There are not masses of people in any one place, and the jobs do not directly create wealth. It is true that MT got rid of them because they were losing money, but manufacturing is essential to the health of a country's economy, so although they were losing money, we should have held onto them, as they are vital to our country and its future well-being.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Who's paying for your pipe dream?
As Smack has pointed out, Scotland gets a disproportionately higher investment in the renewables sector than other parts of the UK. I believe its 30% of government spend goes to investing in Scotland's renewables sector. That investment would be seriously reduced in the event of a YeSNP win. As well as the reduction in new build investment. That also means a serious reduction in the subsidies that renewables operators receive in the running of renewables project as contrary. To popular belief. They don't churn out free energy once they're built.
As Smack has pointed out, Scotland gets a disproportionately higher investment in the renewables sector than other parts of the UK. I believe its 30% of government spend goes to investing in Scotland's renewables sector. That investment would be seriously reduced in the event of a YeSNP win. As well as the reduction in new build investment. That also means a serious reduction in the subsidies that renewables operators receive in the running of renewables project as contrary. To popular belief. They don't churn out free energy once they're built.
And how much is Scotland's renewable 'subsidy' compared to, let's say, our share of the spend on trident?
Original post by sauzee_4
If Scotland took on a share of the UK debt we would not meet the Eurozone Convergence Criteria, so we would not qualify to join the Euro:
1.
HICP inflation (12-months average of yearly rates): Shall be no more than 1.5% higher, than the unweighted arithmetic average of the similar HICP inflation rates in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation. EU member states with a HICP rate significantly below the comparable rates in other Member States, do not qualify as a benchmark country for the reference value and will be ignored, if it can be established its price developments have been strongly affected by exceptional factors (i.e. severe wage cuts and/or a strong recession).[8]
2.
Government budget deficit: The ratio of the annual general government deficit relative to gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices, must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. Deficits being "slightly above the limit" (previously outlined by the evaluation practise to mean deficits in the range from 3.0–3.5%),[9] will as a standard rule not be accepted, unless it can be established that either: "1) The deficit ratio has declined substantially and continuously before reaching the level close to the 3%-limit" or "2) The small deficit ratio excess above the 3%-limit has been caused by exceptional circumstances and has a temporary nature (i.e. expenditure one-offs triggered by a significant economic downturn, or expenditure one-offs triggered by the implementation of economic reforms with a positive mid/long-term effect)".[5][6]
3.
Government debt-to-GDP ratio: The ratio of gross government debt (measured at its nominal value outstanding at the end of the year and consolidated between and within the sectors of general government) relative to GDP at market prices, must not exceed 60% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. Or if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds the 60% limit, the ratio shall at least be found to have "sufficiently diminished and must be approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace".[6]
4.
Exchange rate: Applicant countries should have joined the exchange-rate mechanism (ERM / ERM II) under theEuropean Monetary System (EMS) for two consecutive years, and should not have devalued its currency during the last two years, meaning that the country shall have succeeded to keep its monetary exchange-rate within a ±15% range from an unchanged central rate.
5.
Long-term interest rates (average yields for 10yr government bonds in the past year): Shall be no more than 2.0% higher, than the unweighted arithmetic average of the similar 10-year government bond yields in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation (having qualified as benchmark countries for the calculation of the HICP reference value). If any of the 3 EU member states in concern are suffering from interest rates significantly higher than the "GDP-weighted Eurozone average interest rate", and at the same time have no complete funding access to financial markets (which will be the case for as long as a country receives disbursements from a sovereign state bailout program), then such a country will not qualify as a benchmark country for the reference value; which then only will be calculated upon data from fewer than 3 EU member states.[10]
I know that's why somewhere in my posts I said 'medium to long term'. However in the short time it will still have to join the fiscal compact, banking union and Schengen area. While legally obliged to join the Euro when it meets the criteria, which could be within the medium to long time. My point still remains. Why is giving up sovereignty to have rule from London unbearable but having rule from Brussels inherently better? If having decisions closer to home is a key pledge by anti British Unionist. It's immediately contraindicated by having Brussels increasingly interfere Scotland's economy. London should not impose austerity but Brussels is better serve to do so?
The SNP's position and those leading the Yes campaign makes no sense. They are claiming a portion of sovereignty for the people of Scotland only to hand it back to Brussels. Take the powers to set your interest rates from London, give it to Brussels. Take the powers to set your own budget from London, give it Brussels. Take powers to regulate your own banks from London, give it to Brussels. Take powers to manage your state borders from London, give it to Brussels.
Now I'm not against a more integrated European Union, in fact I favour a fully fledged federated EU. But I'm not contradicting myself by arguing British politicians should not legislative over me but European politicians can, without a logical explanation.
The logic of anti British & pro European unionist is as follows: "British MP's & Prime Minister is telling us what to do. We must leave to save our sovereignty! European MEP's and Commission President, you tell us to cut our budget? okay then."
London bad. Brussels good. Why?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Choo.choo
How are people against putting taxes up?
The way to fix the problem, is to fix the economy. We need to start building things in the country to create wealth. Margaret Thatcher got rid of all our manufacturing industries, and changed that to service sector. Manufacturing jobs are needed to create wealth from industrial production, where there are labour intensive jobs, and where there are loads of people in any one place, and where people make things that directly create wealth. Service sector jobs are not like that. There are not masses of people in any one place, and the jobs do not directly create wealth. It is true that MT got rid of them because they were losing money, but manufacturing is essential to the health of a country's economy, so although they were losing money, we should have held onto them, as they are vital to our country and its future well-being.
The way to fix the problem, is to fix the economy. We need to start building things in the country to create wealth. Margaret Thatcher got rid of all our manufacturing industries, and changed that to service sector. Manufacturing jobs are needed to create wealth from industrial production, where there are labour intensive jobs, and where there are loads of people in any one place, and where people make things that directly create wealth. Service sector jobs are not like that. There are not masses of people in any one place, and the jobs do not directly create wealth. It is true that MT got rid of them because they were losing money, but manufacturing is essential to the health of a country's economy, so although they were losing money, we should have held onto them, as they are vital to our country and its future well-being.
Then it should please you to hear that for the first time in decades that the manufacturing sector is reporting profits under the coalition. Coventry will see £60m of investment to bolster it even further in that area and similar such investments are being made across England.
Why not Scotland? It's a devolved matter. Write to your MSP if you don't like the present strategy.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Midlander
Then it should please you to hear that for the first time in decades that the manufacturing sector is reporting profits under the coalition. Coventry will see £60m of investment to bolster it even further in that area and similar such investments are being made across England.
Why not Scotland? It's a devolved matter. Write to your MSP if you don't like the present strategy.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why not Scotland? It's a devolved matter. Write to your MSP if you don't like the present strategy.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Will that lead to better exports? The Balance of Payments for the UK is awful. We import massively, but export very little.
Original post by Gordon1985
What?
That it's a particulalry 'Scottish' problem is the exact opposite of what I said. I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.
And one-sided, anecdotal evidence is a particulalry **** basis to make an argument.
What about Mo Farrah, do you think he hasn't faced the exact same attitudes your girlfriend has? Probably even more so because he's not white.
You're saying a Scot who lived their whole life in England would face no problems in describing themselves as English because you and other reasonable people would have no problem with it. If you're going to be honest, you know damn well, someone like that would face the exact same kind of attitudes as your girlfriend has. I doubt it would be malicious or be from the majority but you know it would be there.
That it's a particulalry 'Scottish' problem is the exact opposite of what I said. I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.
And one-sided, anecdotal evidence is a particulalry **** basis to make an argument.
What about Mo Farrah, do you think he hasn't faced the exact same attitudes your girlfriend has? Probably even more so because he's not white.
You're saying a Scot who lived their whole life in England would face no problems in describing themselves as English because you and other reasonable people would have no problem with it. If you're going to be honest, you know damn well, someone like that would face the exact same kind of attitudes as your girlfriend has. I doubt it would be malicious or be from the majority but you know it would be there.
I don't know Mo Farah, you should ask him personally if you're that interested. Until a survey is done across the country anecdotal evidence is all we can go off. To whet your appetite though, take another anecdote:
I hired a kilt for a hall ball a few years ago. The Scots in the room told me it was an insult for an Englishman to wear a kilt and that I was 'hijacking Scottish culture'. These Scots coming from all parts and fairly unanimous in their opinion. I have not bothered to wear one since.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Choo.choo
Will that lead to better exports? The Balance of Payments for the UK is awful. We import massively, but export very little.
Time will tell, nothing happens overnight. But you just slated Westminster for not supporting manufacturing and now you are told that in fact they have done more for it than Labour ever did, you come up with some other criticism.
It's never going to be good enough is it?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Midlander
I suppose I could say the same for you with regard to Scotland becoming independent.
Original post by Choo.choo
I suppose I could say the same for you with regard to Scotland becoming independent.
Not addressing the point. Do you accept that Westminster is in fact doing British manufacturing a good job at the moment?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Midlander
I don't know Mo Farah, you should ask him personally if you're that interested. Until a survey is done across the country anecdotal evidence is all we can go off. To whet your appetite though, take another anecdote:
I hired a kilt for a hall ball a few years ago. The Scots in the room told me it was an insult for an Englishman to wear a kilt and that I was 'hijacking Scottish culture'. These Scots coming from all parts and fairly unanimous in their opinion. I have not bothered to wear one since.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I hired a kilt for a hall ball a few years ago. The Scots in the room told me it was an insult for an Englishman to wear a kilt and that I was 'hijacking Scottish culture'. These Scots coming from all parts and fairly unanimous in their opinion. I have not bothered to wear one since.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Do you know Google? It'll tell you that the 'Mo Farrah can't be English/British' opinion isn't rare.
I'm not sure what I can do beyond constantly telling you that I'm not trying to deny that these kinds of idiots exist and will spout off their opinions. You'll find plenty of them in Scotland and you'll find plenty of them in England as well.
If you want to pretend I'm trying to deny this stuff happens in Scotland with you stories, feel free to bash on.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Midlander
Not addressing the point. Do you accept that Westminster is in fact doing British manufacturing a good job at the moment?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't accept that. Westminster never do a good job of anything, except serve the rich - and themselves.
Original post by Gordon1985
Do you know Google? It'll tell you that the 'Mo Farrah can't be English/British' opinion isn't rare.
I'm not sure what I can do beyond constantly telling you that I'm not trying to deny that these kinds of idiots exist and will spout off their opinions. You'll find plenty of them in Scotland and you'll find plenty of them in England as well.
If you want to pretend I'm trying to deny this stuff doesn't happen in Scotland with you stories, feel free to bash on.
I'm not sure what I can do beyond constantly telling you that I'm not trying to deny that these kinds of idiots exist and will spout off their opinions. You'll find plenty of them in Scotland and you'll find plenty of them in England as well.
If you want to pretend I'm trying to deny this stuff doesn't happen in Scotland with you stories, feel free to bash on.
Not saying you're in denial about it happening. What I am saying is that it's more common north of the border as 'Scottishness' hasn't been tarred by the brush of hooligans that has happened to English patriotism. Seems to be that Scots are afraid of losing their identity and becoming 'North Britain' which is entirely understandable.
That's just the feel I get from living here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Choo.choo
I don't accept that. Westminster never do a good job of anything, except serve the rich - and themselves.
The manufacturing sector is reporting a profit for the first time in God knows how long and unemployment is going further down. Looks like those evil Tories have actually done a half decent job.
If you'd have told me in 2010 that manufacturing would once more be profitable and that £60m was going to be put into Coventry's industrial sector, I'd have laughed it off. But both have happened, courtesy of Westminster.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Midlander
The manufacturing sector is reporting a profit for the first time in God knows how long and unemployment is going further down. Looks like those evil Tories have actually done a half decent job.
If you'd have told me in 2010 that manufacturing would once more be profitable and that £60m was going to be put into Coventry's industrial sector, I'd have laughed it off. But both have happened, courtesy of Westminster.
Posted from TSR Mobile
If you'd have told me in 2010 that manufacturing would once more be profitable and that £60m was going to be put into Coventry's industrial sector, I'd have laughed it off. But both have happened, courtesy of Westminster.
Posted from TSR Mobile
A round of applause, not. You really are very keen about independence. Are you getting paid to defend the union on here? You are never away from the site. Your post history shows nearly 120 pages of posts on this thread.
Original post by Choo.choo
A round of applause, not. You really are very keen about independence. Are you getting paid to defend the union on here? You are never away from the site. Your post history shows nearly 120 pages of posts on this thread.
I do post elsewhere on TSR on topics totally unrelated to this one.
Does restoring pride to manufacturing not count as praiseworthy in your book?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Choo.choo
I don't accept that. Westminster never do a good job of anything, except serve the rich - and themselves.
Troll. Increasing the threshold for income tax was 100% severing the rich.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by FinalMH
Troll. Increasing the threshold for income tax was 100% severing the rich.
Lest we forget introducing the minimum wage. Another savage attack by Westminster on the poor.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Sex, greed, over-centralised politics, and London-centricity – they all play their part in the alienation from Westminster politics that many of us are finding within and beyond the M25.
Were it confined to a turning to populists like Boris Johnson, and Nigel Farage, it might not matter so much. Even the piling up of opinion poll scores for Ukip might not matter so much. But this infection of despair, even hatred of Westminster politics, is most evident and focussed in Scotland. Scotland, where our own Channel 4 News poll finds only 14 per cent of people who regard themselves as British first, and Scottish second.
Having just spent a week in first the Western Isles, and second in Glasgow, hatred of Westminster is by far the most dominant factor in people who told me they were voting yes to Scottish independence. The theme was constantly repeated to me. For some, voting Yes is a long deep seated desire for an independent Scotland. But for far more it seems to be a relatively recent desire to have nothing to do with what so many spoke of as “the sleaze, dishonesty, and self-serving London-centric politics of Westminster”.
I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I’m equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment – often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don’t get it.
Perhaps it should be no surprise. The Coalition government boasts just twelve MP’s out of 59 in Scotland. And only one of these comes from the dominant party in the coalition, the Conservatives.
One senses on the ground in Scotland that the government has left it to the 41 Labour MPs, Labour MSP’s, party workers, and union members to get the No vote out. But some of them, sniffing the possibility of a Yes victory, don’t want to be associated with the “No campaign” when they view their political futures after the vote.
There is no evidence of a positive vision for Scotland from the No vote, just a cascade of negative gruesome warnings about currency, pensions and Europe.
It is as if Westminster doesn’t actually care what happens in the Scottish vote. This as the Sunday Herald, the only Scottish paper to increase its circulation this year, this week also became the first to come out and declare for independence.
Inevitable, as someone who neither lives in Scotland nor boasts Scottish blood I am bound to view this vote from south of the border, despite visiting Scotland regularly. I am bound too to explore the consequences for the rest of the country if Scotland goes independent. Whilst I suspect the “divorce” will be bitter and difficult, perhaps for years, I believe Scotland has the potential benefit in the long term.
As for the consequences of a No vote, the size of the yes vote is bound to force Westminster to look to maximum devolution (termed “Devo Max”) – passing everything bar Foreign Affairs, Defence and fiscal policy to Edinburgh. Yet the No campaign rarely mentions such an event. And the three Westminster parties who so willingly came together to reject a currency union with Scotland should independence dawn, have steadfastly refused to come together to pledge “Devo Max”.
Increasingly it looks as if such an all-party pledge might be the only way to erode the yes vote. Yet it is a move I discussed with many with whom I spoke. A good many said they did not trust Westminster to deliver it.
And no-one talks of a Britain without Scotland. For the rest of us, what will the entity in which we live even be called? Hardly “Great”; hardly “United”; and devoid of many of the Isles that constitute the present British Isles. Additionally, the knowledge that the Scots will suddenly have what we do not have – localised governance devolved from Westminster – is in danger of generating fury. Scottish independence is likely to have a highly destabilising for the rest of us. We only have ourselves to blame.
For too many in Britain, Westminster’s fiddling is breeding political despair. It is despair that seems to be delivering Ukip south of the border and the possibility of a Yes vote north of it.
Were it confined to a turning to populists like Boris Johnson, and Nigel Farage, it might not matter so much. Even the piling up of opinion poll scores for Ukip might not matter so much. But this infection of despair, even hatred of Westminster politics, is most evident and focussed in Scotland. Scotland, where our own Channel 4 News poll finds only 14 per cent of people who regard themselves as British first, and Scottish second.
Having just spent a week in first the Western Isles, and second in Glasgow, hatred of Westminster is by far the most dominant factor in people who told me they were voting yes to Scottish independence. The theme was constantly repeated to me. For some, voting Yes is a long deep seated desire for an independent Scotland. But for far more it seems to be a relatively recent desire to have nothing to do with what so many spoke of as “the sleaze, dishonesty, and self-serving London-centric politics of Westminster”.
I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I’m equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment – often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don’t get it.
Perhaps it should be no surprise. The Coalition government boasts just twelve MP’s out of 59 in Scotland. And only one of these comes from the dominant party in the coalition, the Conservatives.
One senses on the ground in Scotland that the government has left it to the 41 Labour MPs, Labour MSP’s, party workers, and union members to get the No vote out. But some of them, sniffing the possibility of a Yes victory, don’t want to be associated with the “No campaign” when they view their political futures after the vote.
There is no evidence of a positive vision for Scotland from the No vote, just a cascade of negative gruesome warnings about currency, pensions and Europe.
It is as if Westminster doesn’t actually care what happens in the Scottish vote. This as the Sunday Herald, the only Scottish paper to increase its circulation this year, this week also became the first to come out and declare for independence.
Inevitable, as someone who neither lives in Scotland nor boasts Scottish blood I am bound to view this vote from south of the border, despite visiting Scotland regularly. I am bound too to explore the consequences for the rest of the country if Scotland goes independent. Whilst I suspect the “divorce” will be bitter and difficult, perhaps for years, I believe Scotland has the potential benefit in the long term.
As for the consequences of a No vote, the size of the yes vote is bound to force Westminster to look to maximum devolution (termed “Devo Max”) – passing everything bar Foreign Affairs, Defence and fiscal policy to Edinburgh. Yet the No campaign rarely mentions such an event. And the three Westminster parties who so willingly came together to reject a currency union with Scotland should independence dawn, have steadfastly refused to come together to pledge “Devo Max”.
Increasingly it looks as if such an all-party pledge might be the only way to erode the yes vote. Yet it is a move I discussed with many with whom I spoke. A good many said they did not trust Westminster to deliver it.
And no-one talks of a Britain without Scotland. For the rest of us, what will the entity in which we live even be called? Hardly “Great”; hardly “United”; and devoid of many of the Isles that constitute the present British Isles. Additionally, the knowledge that the Scots will suddenly have what we do not have – localised governance devolved from Westminster – is in danger of generating fury. Scottish independence is likely to have a highly destabilising for the rest of us. We only have ourselves to blame.
For too many in Britain, Westminster’s fiddling is breeding political despair. It is despair that seems to be delivering Ukip south of the border and the possibility of a Yes vote north of it.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Gordon1985
And how much is Scotland's renewable 'subsidy' compared to, let's say, our share of the spend on trident?
Using financial or managerial accountancy principals?
UK running costs of trident £2 billion.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_trident_nuclear_deterrent-28864
UK renewables subsidies about £5 billion.
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/10/research-renewable-energy-subsidies-double-5-billion-years.html
However, the renewables subsidy is difficult to calculate due to additional overheads being charged back to the consumer and tax breaks.
Both are financed UK wide. Both have a higher spend per capita in Scotland than the UK.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Using financial or managerial accountancy principals?
UK running costs of trident £2 billion.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_trident_nuclear_deterrent-28864
UK renewables subsidies about £5 billion.
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/10/research-renewable-energy-subsidies-double-5-billion-years.html
However, the renewables subsidy is difficult to calculate due to additional overheads being charged back to the consumer and tax breaks.
Both are financed UK wide. Both have a higher spend per capita in Scotland than the UK.
UK running costs of trident £2 billion.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_trident_nuclear_deterrent-28864
UK renewables subsidies about £5 billion.
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/10/research-renewable-energy-subsidies-double-5-billion-years.html
However, the renewables subsidy is difficult to calculate due to additional overheads being charged back to the consumer and tax breaks.
Both are financed UK wide. Both have a higher spend per capita in Scotland than the UK.
My word you even lie when you give the evidence yourself.
UK renewable subsidies for the last financial year listed were £1.99bn, not £5bn. That report (produced by the taxpayer alliance, who have an agenda against subsidising renewables) have forecast a rise to £5bn in the future!
Trident on the other hand is (according to that guesstimating report) upto £2.4bn, before you include year on year costs of approximately £560m a year and the tiny factor of the procurement costs of a replacement, which will be tens of billions, and that's giving a low-ball price!
(edited 9 years ago)
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
- University Admissions Advice
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- 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
Trending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 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 2 weeks 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 16 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 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 2 weeks 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?
