"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:

Bruce wrote:

It wasn't Gordon Brown who negotiated the opt-out in the Maastricht Treaty
that meant the UK could decide later whether or not to join the single
currency.

But it was John Major who took us into the ERM, and went to
ridiculously excessive lengths on Black Wednesday in a last ditch
attempt to keep us in it.

I never denied that he was the Chancellor who took us in, although support
for the move and at that particular level was widespread in political and
economic circles at the time largely as a means to control inflation.


On the contrary, inflation should have been controlled *before*
entering the ERM. As when Greece joined the Euro some years later,
the rules were bent to allow the UK to join the ERM and the result was
a political and economic disaster. Do we never learn?

The UK's entry to the ERM was entirely a political construct. We
entered at the wrong time and at the wrong exchange rate, purely to
satisfy the Europhile wing of the Tory party. Thanks to the ensuing
disaster, most of the Tory party has now seen sense and there are only
a small number of Europhiles left.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:28:49 +0100, Alex Potter
wrote:

On 05/06/12 16:34, Bruce wrote:
If Scotland left the UK, the UK would have nowhere to base its nuclear
submarines.

Devonport.

If it is supposedly safe to park them about 25 miles downriver from
Glasgow then several other places on the Thames should be OK.


There is nowhere in English coastal waters that offers a suitable
location for the stationing and maintenance of Trident nuclear
submarines.

Devonport is completely unsuitable. It just manages to serve the much
smaller nuclear-powered (but not nuclear armed) hunter/killer
submarines - I should know, because I designed a significant part of
the complex that they use - but lacks the essential features that are
offered by Coulport and Faslane.

Nowhere else around the English coast comes close.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:23:22 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:14:09PM +0100, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:44:31 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:14*pm, e27002 wrote:
One can nitpick about details. *But, overall I am not sure what there
is to dislike about the Overground.
The overcrowding is probably the worst thing; it's actually been too
successful.
Yes, the trains urgently need those fifth cars.

And sixth, seventh and eighth. Thankfully, having recently changed
jobs, I no longer have to suffer the hell that is an evening train from
Shepherds Bush to Clapham Junction.

I thought that the 378s are only designed for a maximum of five cars.

Bruce wrote:

I never denied that he was the Chancellor who took us in, although support
for the move and at that particular level was widespread in political and
economic circles at the time largely as a means to control inflation.

On the contrary, inflation should have been controlled *before*
entering the ERM.

Which was partially attempted but the ERM was seen as a tool that would help
the job.

As when Greece joined the Euro some years later,
the rules were bent to allow the UK to join the ERM and the result was
a political and economic disaster. Do we never learn?

Unfortunaely not. The history of 20th century British economic policy is
full of attempts to enter exchange rate schemes, often at rates that turned
out to be bad but which the consensus of opinion of the time fully
supported. The return to the Gold Standard in the 1920s at the pre-war rate
was another.

The UK's entry to the ERM was entirely a political construct. We
entered at the wrong time and at the wrong exchange rate, purely to
satisfy the Europhile wing of the Tory party. Thanks to the ensuing
disaster, most of the Tory party has now seen sense and there are only
a small number of Europhiles left.

It is rewriting of history, which you accuse others of, to claim it was just
to satisfy Conservative Europhiles. It was the widespread political and
economic consensus of the day that the UK should strive to enter the ERM at
that rate.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:01:01 +0100
Bruce wrote:
disaster, most of the Tory party has now seen sense and there are only
a small number of Europhiles left.

Even Ken Clarke has finally stopped banging on about the euro. Has he seen
sense or has he just been told to button it? We shall never know.

B2003

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:06:22 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Devonport is completely unsuitable. It just manages to serve the much
smaller nuclear-powered (but not nuclear armed) hunter/killer
submarines - I should know, because I designed a significant part of
the complex that they use - but lacks the essential features that are
offered by Coulport and Faslane.

What essential features? Are we talking geological features that can't be
reproduced by man or infrastructure that would simply cost a bit to build?

B2003

On Jun 5, 5:10*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
What 'position in the world' would that be?
That of a third rate former Imperial nation? *That of a third rate
former military power? *That of a bankrupt former economic power?
Well to pull just one example off the top of my head, John Major always
believed that if Scotland went, so would the UK's permanent seat on the UN
Security Council (see his memoirs for more of this).
I'm not sure that you gain any credibility by quoting John Major, one
of the worst Prime Ministers the UK has ever had.

Major's stock is slowly rising. For one thing thanks to him we don't have
the additional burden of being in a single currency that's liable to
collapse soon.

John Major started the ball rolling with regard to peace in Northern
Ireland. Regardless of his failings, we should all be grateful for
his work in this regard.

On 06/06/2012 16:38, d wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:06:22 +0100
wrote:
Devonport is completely unsuitable. It just manages to serve the much
smaller nuclear-powered (but not nuclear armed) hunter/killer
submarines - I should know, because I designed a significant part of
the complex that they use - but lacks the essential features that are
offered by Coulport and Faslane.

What essential features? Are we talking geological features that can't be
reproduced by man or infrastructure that would simply cost a bit to build?


Is there anything that Polson hasn't built?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
e27002 wrote:
John Major started the ball rolling with regard to peace in Northern
Ireland. Regardless of his failings, we should all be grateful for
his work in this regard.

Major's problem was the media. Because he was subdued and somewhat introvert
and not a loud shouty egomaniac like most media types they portrayed him as a
dull idiot when he's anything but. But then along comes a shallow oily spiv,
all show and no substance called Blair and they fall in love because he's
one of their own.

B2003

On 06/06/2012 16:51, Graeme Wall wrote:
Is there anything that Polson hasn't built?

I'm surprised that he hasn't made a contribution to the Merseyrail
discussion, since he was involved in the construction/design of the loop
line, IIRC.

--
Dave,
Frodsham
http://s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/Davy41/