Bruce wrote:

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.

You can thank the Tory Right for that, and subsequently Gordon Brown,
but not John Major, unless you are prepared to justify a major
re-writing of history.

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. Nor was it really the Conservative Right backbenchers who forced
that one - Europe really only exploded as an issue in the Conservative Party
after the point had been negotiated. (Thatcher has tried to rewrite history
on this, with some success.) Without that opt-out the UK would have been
swept in.

As Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret
Thatcher, John Major took the UK into the Exchange Rate Mechanism and,
as Prime Minister, ordered the massive rise in interest rates on Black
Wednesday. He was avowedly pro-ERM and pro-Euro.

I think some time spent reading about modern history would be very
helpful to you.

Yes I work in modern history in my day job. I am also aware that Major was
pro ERM just as virtually all informed opinion was at the time, and also
that long term this country has been repeatedly obsessed with one form of
fixed or at least stable exchange rates or another, whether the Gold
Standard, the ERM or all those inbetween. And once in the country was
committed to maintaining that rate as best as it could. But being committed
to the ERM was not the same as being committed to going the full way into
the single currency.

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

On 05/06/2012 19:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:10:02 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012,
Graeme Wall remarked:
Where does the US berth boomers outside of its own bases?

Boomers? And it has numerous bases in countries they don't govern.

About 8 IIRC.


Ballistic Missile Submarines, which is what the RN has based in Scotland

I don't know where they base any of them, even in USA.

The Atlantic fleet in Georgia, the Pacific fleet in Washington state.

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

"Tim Roll-Pickering" 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.

To state otherwise is rewriting history. That seems to be your forte.

It isn't mine, so further discussion would be pointless.

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

Devonport.

--
Alex

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. It was
not automatic that it would lead to membership of the single currency when
it happened and indeed when the opt-out on that was negotiated before the
ERM exit. The implication to the contrary that support for the ERM
automatically led to support for the single currency is the rewriting of
history, no matter how one tries to state it as fact and declare out.

As for the moves to stay in, this is the nightmare when a government and
central bank is committed to a currency measure even though other economic
factors are putting it under great strain. To simply bail out and devalue at
the first sign of trouble would have been hugely damaging to investment and
market confidence - exactly at what precise point did the lengths become
"ridiculously excessive"? Had the market madness subsided earlier during
that day it's probable that the measures would have soon been reigned in.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

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.

On 06/06/2012 02:52, 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.

Water's too shallow off the mouth of the Thames. The point about
Devonport is that it is where the rest of the nuclear submarines are
based so they have the expertise to deal with the boats.


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

On Jun 6, 3:52*am, 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.

Sure, though Devonport has the benefit of already being the base of
the nuclear powered attack fleet, so has all the facilities associated
with operating Submarines and handling nuclear type stuff. I expect
making room for the missile boats there wouldn't be particularly
challenging.

Robin

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.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
puppies and a belt sander
-- after JoeB, in the Monastery

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:09:49PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

If the plans are approved then I suspect it will be 2-3 years before
anything materialises "on the ground" as the carriages will have to be
procured and built, the station platform extensions designed and
constructed plus any signalling work needed to deal with different
stopping positions has to designed and then done on the ground. It
then all has to be put together and tested while also keeping the day
to day service running.

I don't believe that it takes 2 years to build carriages, at least not
when a load of the same design have already been built so the designs
are set in stone and the snags in the manufacturing process known and
ironed out. And I thought that most stations were already long enough
for at least 5 carriages, and often more.

Platform extensions, where needed can be done in parallel with rolling
out the new stock, by using selective door opening.

And what's involved that makes it so difficult to move some signals
20-odd yards?

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Perl: the only language that makes Welsh look acceptable