Devo Nano Watch, 24 March
So far we’ve had no replies – not even automated form ones – from any of the members of Scottish Labour’s “Devolution Commission” we emailed these questions to. They’re fair and reasonable questions, asked politely on behalf of 200,000+ Wings readers and all Scottish voters, and there’s no conceivable excuse not to answer them. We’ll be keeping on at this until we get some. The email we sent is below.
To:
Scottish Labour, Johann Lamont, Anas Sarwar, Margaret Curran, Sarah Boyack, Jackson Cullinane, Gregg McClymont, Duncan McNeil, Catherine Stihler, Willie YoungHello, Scottish Labour person. I wonder if someone could get back to me with answers to these questions about your proposals to partially devolve taxation to the Scottish Parliament in the event of a No vote in the independence referendum. I’ve been unable to discern the answers from the full version of the Devolution Commission’s report and would appreciate if you could clarify your position.
1. Johann Lamont told Gordon Brewer last week that Scotland would not be allowed to have a top rate of tax which was lower than the UK’s top rate. Under your proposals, would Scotland be allowed to undercut the UK on the basic rate (or the 10p rate which UK Labour is committed to introducing if elected in 2015)?
2. Ms Lamont made plain, however, that it would be possible for Scotland to have a higher top rate than the UK. Would Scotland also have the ability to increase the basic rate above the UK level, or only the higher rates?
3. If the answer to Q1 is “No”, then if Scotland ever chose to unilaterally raise the upper rate it would be impossible to ever lower it again – because the proposals only allow the upper rate to be decreased if all other rates are decreased along with it, and doing so would result in Scotland having a lower basic rate than the UK, which would be illegal.
Are the proposals deliberately intended to create a situation where irrespective of what government was elected to Holyrood in the future and what its policies/mandate were, it could only ever increase the top rates of tax, never lower them?
4. If, on the other hand, the answer to Q1 is “Yes”, lowering the top rate after a previous increase – so that it was the same as the UK’s but the basic rate was now below the UK’s – could reasonably be expected to cause damaging competition among basic-rate taxpayers, as workers from the rest of the UK flooded into Scotland looking for jobs on which they’d have to pay lower taxes.Do your proposals contain any measures to counter this problem?
5. Meanwhile, if the UK raised the top tax rate – as Ed Miliband proposes – we know that Scotland would be obliged to follow suit. But if the UK then restored it to its original level (perhaps as a result of a different government being elected), would Scotland be unable to do so for the reasons outlined in Q1, and be forced to keep an upper tax rate higher than that of the UK?
6. If the answer to Q5 is “Yes”, does that mean that a UK government could, if it chose to for any reason, deliberately engineer a situation whereby it had a permanently lower top rate of tax than Scotland, putting Scotland at a locked-in disadvantage by incentivising the wealthy to move out of Scotland to enjoy the lower top rate in the rest of the UK?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Warmest regards,
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Editor
Wings Over Scotland
If we’ve still had no response by the end of the week, perhaps any readers who are constituents of any of these elected representatives could try asking them for us.
Did you send it to Ian Davidson? IIRC he was usually fairly responsive when I was in his constituency.
Those are questions we’d all like answers to.
However, I doubt if you’ll get a reply. They won’t want to commit to anything in writing.
excellent, another excuse to attempt to get Sarwar to answer me. Only ever get a “copy and paste” answer to my first emails and then nothing on the follow up ones.
“I dinnae agree wie ye”
Is probably the response you’ll eventually get!
I’m not holding my breath that we will get any meaningful answers and lazy journalists have no interest in upsetting the Unionist fandando.
Look it simple, the answers will be forth coming for anyone who doubts this. Oh look there’s a squirrel.
Good points.
Subsiduary questions:
1. Do you feel Johann Lamont is best able to present and explain Labour’s proposals to the people of Scotland for them to make a clear decision in the Referendum?
2. Can you guarantee that you can convince a majority of your Westminster colleagues and opposition colleagues to support any proposal to further democracy in Scotland?
I fear you’re wasting your time, both in the hope of getting a credible and interesting reply but also in engaging with TPFKASL. They’re done, finished, kaput!
Lets show some respect( whether deserved or not) and let them die in peace at their second or third homes.
Honestly Stu, you can sometimes be awfully slow. Here it is, write it down, repeat it over to yourself. Try to grasp it if you can. This is The Answer:
WITH RESPECT WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID IS WITH RESPECT AND I WANT TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR AND WITH RESPECT AND WITH RESPECT AND WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS WHAT WE HAVE SAID AND WE ARE VERY CLEAR ON THIS WITH REPSECT WHAT WE HAVE SAID AND WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS WITH RESPECT AND WE HAVE SAID AND I WANT TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR AND WE ARE CLEAR THAT.
You moron, what part of that do you not understand?
It will be very interesting if you get an answer, which is of course unlikely.
In the meantime I rather like this article by “Forbes”
link to forbes.com
My brain started to swirl after just the 1st Q,so I gave up. You must be made of stronger stuff to be able to wade through the morass of BT’s thinking. It’s at least triplethink from post ‘1984’
A couple of scenarios spring to mind that could also benefit from a little clarification:
1. UK government under Labour reinstates the 50p tax rate as promised, before Holyrood has altered the top rate. Presumably all extra revenue goes to HM Treasury.
2 Labour initially bottles it on taxing the really rich, but follows through with devo-nano. The Scots government duly puts the top rate up to 50p and channels extra cash into, for instance, college places. At the next Westminster budget, Labour chancellor is embarrassed into following suit.
What then happens to the extra income tax from Scotland? Does it stay in Holyrood’s hands or get syphoned off to London?
@ Vronsky
May I just say how much I admire both your grasp of the argument and your elegance of expression. 😀
Herald just killed off the Labour faithful recovery story.
i do not think Marcus liked the doin they were getting!
Would you like me to waken you if a reply comes in?
The reply will probably be SNP bad. Alex Salmond bad. That’s the only disadvantage Scots should worry about.
A further supplementary question:
Does SLAB have a formal plan, or indeed methodology, for hypothecation of tax revenues?
Why not try Iain Gray? Isn’t he Labour’s Finance Spokesman at Holyrood? He’ll know.
Although he didn’t know where the money for the Oil Fund would come from right enough.
Our MPs/MSPs don’t like giving us straight answers.
Listen to Alastair Carmicheal Secretary of State for Portsmouth at a Holyrood Committee Hearing.
Watch his facial expressions as his sidekick answers some awkward questions.
link to bellacaledonia.org.uk
Gottit. Lamont is a poet influence by ee cummings.
WITH RESPECT
what we have already said is
with respect
and i want to make this very clear and
with respect
and
with respect
and
what we have said is what we have said is what we have said
and we are very
clear
on this
with respect
what we have said and
what we are saying is
with respect
and
we have said and i want to make this very clear and we are clear
that…
Maybe you should also email Douglas Fraser , Bill Jamieson ,Torquil Crichton, Magnus Gardham etc and see if any of them can answer these simple questions.
i would like to ask why sarwar got his dads constituency and given the deputy leader position of scottish labour when there are labour people who have been with the party for decades?
I’d ask Jim Murphy but its too early in the week for a square go in the middle of Giffnock!
“Did you send it to Ian Davidson? IIRC he was usually fairly responsive when I was in his constituency.”
He wasn’t on the Devo Commission.
vronsky: sounds like it could be The Fall lyrics!
With respect-ahhh…
With respect Mr. Rev. Campbell we’ll get back to you by 2016.
Come ,come Findlay!
It was because he was the best man for the job – surely you noticed?
@ Findlay Farquaharson:
Hereditary seats – It’s a Labour thing. To everyone else it’s nepotism.
im in glasgow southside so i have Anas for an MP.
However many minutes or hours Rev Stu spent drafting his questions it clearly exceeded the total time spent by New OneNation Labour on their entire Devo Nano report.
They could prove this wrong by providing a coherent reply.
Here in ABZ, BetterTogether Press and Journal today ignore completely all of whatever Lamont’s up to, with their headline “Lamont’s rounds on SNP” and Lamont says “Yes campaign is dishonest disgrace.” It’s clearly beyond even P&J to try and sell Labour in Scotland con, so they headline with their Salmond accused thing of the day that blames Salmond for all the North Sea oil helicopter crash tragedies or “copters” as these journalists call them. If the Aberdeen Press and Journal gets any further far right frothing at the mouth, they’ll be channelling St Thatcher of Grantham but check back tomorrow.
I honest answer would be, I’ll pass it onto Ed Balls. I haven’t a fechin clue, Ed told us what we can and can’t have.
It is now time for the Scottish Goverment to ask the Organization for security and co-operation to monitor every aspect of the forthcoming referendum as the media are biased and labour are downright outrageous in their statements
Re Lamont’s remarks to the effect that Salmond not having children sort of disqualifies him from speaking on childcare:
It is kinda like telling some-one they’re not qualified to speak on behalf of kids with Downs Syndrome unless they’ve got one, or speak on cancer treatment unless they’ve had it.
You’ve got absolutely no chance of getting any replies to these questions from the Labour representatives you’ve addressed. Hell, even I can’t answer them and I’ve got an HNC in computing!
Ms Lamont scores shameful points wherever she can and on whatever issue she finds
I will NEVER forget her shameful intervention on the topic of child protection, in May 2012.
Actually read BetterTogether press and journal Lamont thing and P&J’s Cameron Brooks says Labour has “a vision to enhance devolution and create a new new new new powerhouse Scottish Parliament. Come on you have to laugh at/admire the vote no propaganda daily poured over us and across this non country. They must all be wondering how the hell they’re NOT pushing no vote to 100%.
Don’t hold your breath Stu, I sent an email to my local Labour MP, Jim McGovern, regarding Anas Sarwar and co not bothering to turn up for the Bedroom Tax vote, on 20th December, the only reply I got was one asking if I was one of his contituents because
“Due to strict parliamentary protocol I am only able to reply to people who live in my constituency. I would be very grateful if you could send your address to me so that I can reply fully.”
I replied immediately to say I was indeed and I’m STILL waiting for a reply!
I doubt if I will EVER get one!
“Ms Lamont scores shameful points wherever she can and on whatever issue she finds”
nah, she doesnt score points, she loses points, she thinks she scores points and that shows up just how fik she is.
Just read that, I sent the email on 20th December, wasn’t meant to read as if the Bedroom tax vote was on the 20th December!
Perils of writing a quick message in your lunch hour! 😉
What I say to you is this:
Can we nominate JoLa for that vacant comedy slot at Edin Fest, the one from which the No Party has opted out. With that jaiket on she’d be dead ringer for Eddie Izzard, and twice as funny.
Comedy Gold Jola, she is a showgirl…
Ahh, I was waiting for this.
(RT’d by Stu earlier)
link to medialens.org
Perhaps we can take their collective silence that none of them have a scooby, but it is pertinent to ask questions they won’t or can’t answer as opposed to questions they will answer.
So the next time you see a Better Together or United under Labour stall (or variants thereof) over the coming months ask the BT types there to explain Labour’s devolution plans on tax.
That will certainly cause their brains to freeze.
Gottit. Lamont is a poet influence by ee cummings.
This is no laughing matter, so why have I been in kinks at least a half dozen times in the last couple of days?
uilleam_beag:
Interesting scenario their Uilleam.
The way devolved tax powers work is if the Scottish Parliament alters the tax rate up above the UK level they can keep the extra tax generated.
So your scenario where the Scottish Parliament put the tax rate up to gain extra income which is then matched in the next Westminster Parliament does raise an interesting question about a loss of income to the Scottish Parliament.
“With respect, Campbell, we’ll have a conversation, in 2016.”
The Mags and the Jola went to Perth
In their tattered auld rose-red coats.
They took some guff and plenty of mince
Wrapped up in a twelve-bob note.
The Mags looked up to the Ed above
And sang to his big baw-heid
Oo gorgeous Ed! Oo, Ed, ma man,
What a pure brilliant leader ye ur
Ye ur,
Ye ur!
What a pure brilliant leader ye ur!
Jola said to the Mags,‘Ya two-faced auld bag!
You listen tae whit ah say –
It’s me that’s the leader, ya gum-bumpin bleeder!
It’s me that decides whit tae dae!’
Skulkin and sulkin in Perth for three days,
Both up tae their oxters in pish
Fae Sarwars and Baillies, Dugdales and Grays,
With the cameras catching it all
It all
It all!
With the cameras catching it all.
‘Jola, are you willing, to sell for a shilling
Your soul?’ Said the JoLa, ‘Och aye!’
Ak kin show ah’ve goat brains, ah kin show aff ma weans,
Ah kin look them aw straight in the eye.
With respect, with respect, whit ahm sayin,
It’s mature conversation we need
Ye’s must let me answer the questions, but
Ye’s must let me ask them as well
As well
As well!
Ye’s must let me ask them as well.
SLab don’t give a toss if their proposals stand up to proper scrutiny or not. As long as their activists can go round the doors with a leaflet telling people that they can get the same social benefits that are in the indyplan by voting no, that is all they are interested in.
It worked with the Dunfermline flyers (f-liars?) so why won’t it work on a national level? It’s not as if the media will tell folks otherwise.
Off topic
Just back from a couple of weeks in Gran Canaria.I managed to get a Scottish sun tan which means that I have changed from blue to white.
But seriously,unleaded petrol is 1.06 euro a litre there (about84p),and we are the ones with the oil.
an Brotherhood
Possibly not the bestist ever, ever, but wow.
O/T but still on Labour. Allan Grogan of LFI has an account of the his Labour conference speech posted here: link to labourforindy.com
It seems reeling off Labour founding principle after Labour founding principle brought about jeers and heckling
Hmm.
Twitter is an odd place.
I can’t decide if @ yestoscotland is a poor attempt at a 5th column exercise, a poor attempt at parody, or merely an idiot.
Somebody in Greenock should knock on Duncan McNeil’s door and ask him whether he supports the Devoplus proposal now that he has signed up to the Devonano one. Talk about hedging your bets.
Rev
It occurs to me the reaction from the receipients of your letter is most likely to be:
You’re not going to believe it – they actually believe we were being serious about implementing this.
Not worth spending too much more time on. Just another Squirrel once the wrapping is pulled off.
O/T I have been talking to a No/Maybe/possible Yes whose main concern is who is going to pay his State Pension if Scotland votes YES, does anyone have an article on future pension rights which I could use to help persuade him to go with the good guys
onzebill – Scott Minto has a good pensions article on Wings here link to wingsoverscotland.com
O/T
link to harddawn.com
this stuff from the ‘hard dawn’ website was posted to my fb page…if you are at all feeling delicate, do steer clear of it. It is mind bogglingly sickening.
O/ T #
I was out delivering yes leaflets yesterday and was refused entry to a tenement by a young Scottish lass, of course I was able to access and post said leaflets via a more pleasant and civilised resident. I wondered when that would happen!
Oh Look, a squirrel!
link to scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net
The Scottish Government has published its detailed proposals for pensions in an independent Scotland, including the state pension and related benefits. These can be found in a paper called “Pensions in an Independent Scotland” as well as in the white paper “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”.
The general principle behind the proposals is to stress the importance of continuity for our older people, guaranteeing that state pensions and benefits will continue to be paid as now, on time and in full. In addition, a Yes vote creates the possibility of important immediate improvements.
Key points include:
The possibility of a lower retirement age
Protection of pensions and guarantee credit with a triple lock
Savings credit saved through independence
Better protection for spouses
As we see below, many of these rights and possibilities would be lost without a Yes vote next year.
Will I be entitled to a Scottish State Pension after independence?
On independence, people living in Scotland will be entitled to the Scottish State Pension based on years of national insurance credits built up in the UK. From that point onwards, entitlement built up in Scotland will accrue to the Scottish State Pension.
At what age will I qualify for a Scottish State Pension after independence?
UK government reforms will see pension ages equalised at 65 by December 2018. The state pension age will then increase to 66 by October 2020, and the UK government also plans a further increase to 67 between 2026 and 2028.
Because life expectancy is shorter in Scotland than other parts of the UK, the Scottish Government proposes that an Independent Commission should review the proposed increase to 67. It may be that a lower retirement age is retained by an independent government to reflect lower life expectancy. That possibility will be lost without a Yes vote next year.
What form will the Scottish State Pension Take?
Scotland will become an independent country in March 2016, around the same time that UK reforms to the state pension come into place in April of 2016. Those reforms will see those already over retirement age continuing to receive the basic state pension (as well as additional state pension), while those retiring after that date will receive a new Single Tier Pension. That will be the starting point for Scotland’s system of state pensions.
How much will the Scottish State Pension and Scottish Single Tier Pension be?
It is estimated that the basic state pensions will be at least £118.60 in 2016/17. The Scottish Government has guaranteed that this will then be uprated each year by a “triple lock” in the first years after independence.
The UK single-tier pension is estimated to be worth £158.90 by 2016/17. The Scottish Single Tier Pension will be at least £160 per week (or match the UK rate if that is higher). It will also be uprated each year by a “triple lock”.
What is a “triple lock”?
For too many years, Westminster governments have let the value of the state pension slip back, by failing to increase their value fairly from year to year. A triple lock means that the pensions are increased by the highest of:
Average earnings increases
Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation
2.5%
The Scottish Government has committed to increasing both the Scottish State Pension and the Scottish Single Tier Pension by the triple lock beyond 2016, for at least the first term of an independent Scotland, and it would be for future Scottish Governments to decide future policy.
Without independence, pensioners would very likely lose the protection of the triple lock. The current Westminster government has a lock in place for the basic state pension only until 2015. However, there has been no commitment to triple lock either the basic state pension or the Scottish Single Tier pension beyond that date.
What about my pension credits?
Older people who receive pensions credit (guarantee credit and savings credit) will continue to do so after independence. The guarantee credit will also be “triple locked” (see above) for at least the first term of an independent Scottish parliament, with future Scottish government deciding policy after that. Without independence, the opportunity of that “triple lock” will be lost – as Westminster only increases guarantee credit by average earnings which can often fall behind prices.
Another key point is that without independence, people retiring after 2016 and receiving the new Single Tier Pension would lose the right to savings credit. This is because the Westminster government intends to abolish savings credit for new pensioners from 2016. In contrast, the current Scottish Government intends to retain savings credit for all pensioners.
What about entitlements through spouses?
Without independence, some older people retiring after 2016 to the new single tier pensions will lose entitlements that are based on their spouse’s pensions, because of new rules introduced by the Westminster government. In contrast, the Scottish Government will retain provision based on a spouse’s contribution for 15 years after the new Scottish single tier pension comes into effect.
How will this new pensions system be administered?
All state pensions paid in Scotland are already administered here (at centres in Motherwell and Dundee), and will continue to be so after independence.
Hetty
I don’t know whether to thank you yet. I let you know once my head stops spinning. Wow.
Just for the avoidance of any doubt, the harddawn is a spoof site. Hard dawn : hard on….
Ah. Bigger beamer.
Hetty/CameronB
Hard Dawn is a parody website – note the spelling of whisky used too. 😀
Since we’re on a poetic bent –
The Red Paper set out to astonish,
But Rev Stu for clarity did admonish.
While seeking his clarity,
all he got was hilarity,
And Bateman named it a Paean of Pish.
Hetty, I was hunted by one harridan who described the Yes newspaper as “junk mail”, but hey that’s just one person. Most people who see me are accepting it with a smile, or at least very good grace.
I have heard of hard dawn, the site looks dreadful, the article is vicious.
Yes most folk are great and have had only the one person being obstructive when delivering leaflets. One woman refused it thinking it was a newspaper, “I don’t read newspapers” she said, when I said it was a YES leaflet she grabbed it and said, interesting! More positive responses than negative, but the woman who refused me entry to the stair was also happy to deny her neighbours that information. When I asked why she wouldn’t allow access for the other residents to receive the paper, she put the handset down.
As a constituents of Duncan McNeil I will certainly pass on teh questions to him. However, since he has blocked me on twitter I am not actually expecting a reply… (just for the record Ive also been twitter blocked by the MP and the Leader of the Council)
Of course I will keep you all appraised of any reply that will be forthcoming…
I would also ask that what benefit is there to Scotland in “pooling and sharing resources to help poorer parts of the UK” if Scotland is the third richest part. Does that not disadvantage everyone in Scotland?
My Dear Reverend S Campbell. Our answer is in the post. Cheque it out.
onzebill
Aside from what the SG is saying on Pensions post YES, the UK Work and Pensions Dept have confirmed in writing that any existing pensions and those of people who have contributed 35 years will receive there pension from the UK. Same as a retired person moves to Spain, where they still get the cold weather allowance etc. Mr Salmond did mention this in FMQ’s. If you need it I have a copy of the letter from the Work and Pensions dept that I can email to you.
Rev, that is simply brilliant!
I am sure you shall not mind if I pinch it to confuse a couple of unionist trolls on a footie forum’s Random Thoughts section ?
Saying that, being a falkirk fc forum,(heavily populated by Yes minded folks)there is a good chance of a few “friendlies” scratching their heids as weel..
I’m sort of not surprised that SLAB hasn’t bothered to reply, because (as far as I can make out) they’ve already answered. As follows:
You ask: “Would Scotland be allowed to undercut the UK on the basic rate (or the 10p rate which UK Labour is committed to introducing if elected in 2015)?” The answer is yes, subject to a proscribed limits (para 340).
You ask: “Would Scotland also have the ability to increase the basic rate above the UK level, or only the higher rates?” The answer is yes, Scotland would have the ability to increase the basic rate, subject to proscribed limits (again, para 340).
You ask: What would happen if the answer to Question 1 is no? Well it isn’t, so the question doesn’t arise.
You ask: What would happen if the basic rate of tax in Scotland was lower than in the rest of the UK, possibly causing immigration into Scotland? You’ve answered your own question – there might be be an enhanced degree of immigration into Scotland. But why do you see this as a “problem”? Are you opposed to immigration?
You ask: “If the event of the UK increasing the top rate of tax and Scotland doing the same by way of remaining within the proscribed limits, and the UK then lowering the same, would Scotland be precluded from lowering its top rate of tax?” The answer is no, and I cannot see why you should think so.
You ask: “Whether Scotland would have a locked-in disadvantage” if the answer to your first question is yes. Well as the answer to your first question is no (which is it is) then the point doesn’t arise.
I don’t say any of this in support of SLAB’s proposals. But it would explain why they haven’t replied – your points simply don’t arise.
Finally, I concede that my dyspepsia may be partly caused by your grandiose claim that you speak on behalf of “all Scottish voters”. I’m a great supporter of this blog but let’s not get carried away. There are others who disagree, and for any chance of success we have to engage with their views rather than simply trashing them.
@churm rincewind,
Rev(or anyone else on planet earth)does not speak for me, which begs the question, who(apart from yourself)are you speaking for here with your last couple of sentences?
I am not having a pop at you and have zero interest in getting involved with petty nit-picking over the merits of the questions asked that you seem offended by, so I will ask you a simple question instead.
Q. How do you engage in debate with people who are economical with the truth, fudge issues, issue endless unfounded rhetoric day after day and have a lack of respect bordering on pathological hatred for their opponents without having to “trash” (prefer dismantle with reasoned counter arguments myself) their nonsensical arguments?
Just re-read my post at 9.06, apologies if it comes across as a bit narky, not my style, honest!
As for my “simple” question…that didn’t go well
Someone above needs to learn the difference between “proscribed” and “prescribed”, because the two words have virtually opposite meanings.
I can’t help feeling that someone who can’t handle English well enough to make sense even at that level isn’t someone I’m going to look to for clarity on complex policy documents.
Chum Rincewind:
I think your missing one vital point of this exercise.
It’s to ask the questions. It’s to remind Scottish voters how complicated these proposals are. It’s to remind Scottish voters that it’s tinkering round the edges, it’s not the full fiscal autonomy of ‘full tax powers; that the polls show us are most desired. It’s to show Scottish voters that the real emphasis for Labour is middle England and retaining as much power as possible in Westminster. It’s to remind voters of what a pig’s ear the Labour leader made of trying to explain these proposals.
Thats the point of it.
Much like Better Together rattling on constantly about the EU and currency. Those questions have been answered, whether or not you find those answers satisfactory or not, they have still been answered by the SNP and Yes.
So why are they still being asked ? In the hope that they will persuade voters that the Yes campaign look amateur, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I just read JoLa getting a real hard time in the Herald’s letters page. Good for them for printing them.. But I do not anticipate any answers to your questions. They will all be running for cover and that reminds me of a song from my childhood…
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Bang, bang, bang, bang! goes the farmer’s
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
I just read JoLa getting a real hard time in the Herald’s letters page. Good for them for printing them.. But I do not anticipate any answers to your questions. They will all be running for cover and that reminds me of a song from my childhood…
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Bang, bang, bang, bang! goes the farmer’s
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
I just read JoLa getting a real hard time in the Herald’s letters page. Good for them for printing them.. But I do not anticipate any answers to your questions. They will all be running for cover and that reminds me of a song from my childhood…
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Bang, bang, bang, bang! goes the farmer’s
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
I can’t help feeling that someone who can’t handle English well enough to make sense even at that level isn’t someone I’m going to look to for clarity on complex policy documents.
Very perceptive, Morag.
Regarding Currency Union why did the Republic of Ireland get a Currency Union with the UK for over fifty years ???