Stuart Dickson Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 TSB current account pays 5% on balances up to £2,000. Using your spouse that means £4,000 at 4% net. You only need to pay in £500 per month (and you can then immediately switch it back out). The balance transfer fee is a one off of, say 2.5% for a 2 year period compared with over 8% net interest. In addition I have a BoS & Halifax reward account thats pays £5 per month each plus one for my wife which equates to £180 plus I have a Nationwide account paying 5% gros on a balance of £2,500 for a year (which will then be switched to anotehr bank with a similar introductory offer). There are a few hundred pounts to be made each year just for a few minutes of recycling cash between accounts each month - all using money borrowed from credit card companies. Are you talking about the new Club Lloyds account? According to the information on the Money Saving website you need to pay in at least £1,500 per month, and you have to use this account as your main current account setting up at least two direct debits otherwise you have to pay a £5 per month fee. You're right in what you are saying though, you could make money out of what you have suggested. You'd need to be incredibly organised and disciplined to make it work though. Personally I prefer not to use borrowed money for savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 You just got to love politicians - they always stick to their guns and keep their promises. Well as much as I don't like Ed Balls, he's at least shown the logic behind their refusal in that it doesn't meet their long standing criteria for currency union. A criteria that stopped Gordon Brown from taking us into the Euro - and a decision that has been widely acknowledged as the one good thing Gordon Brown did at Number 11 Downing Street. Salmond will have to show his plan B before the referendum otherwise the Yes Campaign is f**ked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Disappearing up your own arse is becoming your tour de force-you were the one that raised the hypothesis on the Yes campaigns hopes for currency and fiscal union, only to rubbish the notion when someone else picks up the thread Go back to you fictitious dinner parties and inflatable girl-friend Oh FFS. I said the Yes Campaign would flog it's principles on Trident as part of a negotiation to try to get currency union. I didn't say that the Yes Campaign should what they want, or that they would get what they want. And it's not me rubbishing the notion, it's every major political party at Westminister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Oh FFS. I said the Yes Campaign would flog it's principles on Trident as part of a negotiation to try to get currency union. I didn't say that the Yes Campaign should what they want, or that they would get what they want. And it's not me rubbishing the notion, it's every major political party at Westminister. I introduced a new point by posting a link to the FOA view on the overheating SE housing situation, which you then tried to hijack by introducing the notion of currency union. Even in an informal currency union there will be guarantees and agreements to make it work, but the point you made put forard the HYPOTHETICAL notion that YS would seek to tie us to that area's economy. Trident-schmident as far as this phase of the debate goes, but you seek to cover your tracks by invoking things from sections of the debate that we moved on from some time ago I dont know what you get from this. You post all sorts of crap, twisting and turning as you go and getting found out all over the place. Do you imagine you are winning these arguments or do you just enjoy the fact that somebody took time to answer the nonsense you peddle. Either way, it's not good for you (not that I'm worried) Edited June 19, 2014 by beyond our ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I introduced a new point by posting a link to the FOA view on the overheating SE housing situation, which you then tried to hijack by introducing the notion of currency union. Even in an informal currency union there will be guarantees and agreements to make it work, but the point you made put forard the HYPOTHETICAL notion that YS would seek to tie us to that area's economy. Trident-schmident as far as this phase of the debate goes, but you seek to cover your tracks by invoking things from sections of the debate that we moved on from some time ago I dont know what you get from this. You post all sorts of crap, twisting and turning as you go and getting found out all over the place. Do you imagine you are winning these arguments or do you just enjoy the fact that somebody took time to answer the nonsense you peddle. Either way, it's not good for you (not that I'm worried) How is any of that twisting or turning? I am voting No - I think we all know that. I've been consistent in that since the day the campaign started. The point you raised about the Bank Of England and an overheating SE housing situation is something I agree with. I hope the Bank Of England comes up with an alternative solution - several have been put forward - that would involve putting in measures in the South East without having to raise interest rates. However what I was attempting to do was to show you that voting Yes would make absolutely no difference to the situation because, if you believe the Yes Campaign's view on this, Scotland would be handing over control of it's fiscal levers to the Bank Of England leaving us in the same situation as we face today. Now for the record I've always argued that Scotland will never get a currency union with the rest of the UK, because it would quite clearly be stupid to hand Alex Salmond and John Swinney a credit card to raise debt that the rest of the UK has to pay for. As it happens it's also a view shared by all of the major political parties in Westminster, and it's a view that was expressed yet again by Ed Balls who made it clear why currency union would not happen. I understand you are feeling frustrated - that's the problem with backing such an ill thought out campaign. Maybe my posting skills aren't that great too. Staribartfast is always very keen to point score by pointing out errors in the minutae of my posts rather than dealing with the general points that I made. But in my head at least I've been completely consistent since the start of this debate. I've certainly never wavered from my No vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 No passenger airlines will touch Prestwick though , unless ,like Ryanair , they are given unfair enticements eg free use of Terminal facilities ! Prestwick is an unnecessary burden on every Scots taxpayer , it wouldn't be missed if it closed tomorrow ! Strictly speaking it's uk taxpayers ;)For what it's worth, I think it's worth trying again to increase passenger traffic at Prestwick. The cost needs to be weighed up against the loss the site, including freight and maintenance operations and the impact on local economy. Also, their might be potential to increase flights depending on what trump has planned for Turnberry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 Strictly speaking it's uk taxpayers ;) For what it's worth, I think it's worth trying again to increase passenger traffic at Prestwick. The cost needs to be weighed up against the loss the site, including freight and maintenance operations and the impact on local economy. Also, their might be potential to increase flights depending on what trump has planned for Turnberry. I don't think anyone is saying lose the site, completely. I just don't think the passenger operations have any value. Any increase in passenger traffic is going to take business away from Glasgow as there isn't a big enough market for 2 airports and airlines have voted with their feet. It would be feasible to continue cargo, maintenance and a private aviation hub at Prestwick and forget about general passenger operations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't think anyone is saying lose the site, completely. I just don't think the passenger operations have any value. Any increase in passenger traffic is going to take business away from Glasgow as there isn't a big enough market for 2 airports and airlines have voted with their feet. It would be feasible to continue cargo, maintenance and a private aviation hub at Prestwick and forget about general passenger operations. I hope it stays open but get the feeling it's touch and go. If it hadn't been for the USA and the RAF, being honest it would probably have closed in the 50's. It used to be said that one reason for Prestwick staying open was that there was very little fog there and it could be used for aircraft diverted from other airports during foggy spells. Don't know if that still matters. If it closes down, do you think they will preserve the bits where The King walked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't think anyone is saying lose the site, completely. I just don't think the passenger operations have any value. Any increase in passenger traffic is going to take business away from Glasgow as there isn't a big enough market for 2 airports and airlines have voted with their feet. It would be feasible to continue cargo, maintenance and a private aviation hub at Prestwick and forget about general passenger operations. I was going on the basis that if passenger flight cease the whole site becomes untenable. This has been stated a fair bit in media over the last wee while, can't recall all the details. Mibees it's just spin though and as you say it could still remain as freight and maintenance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 I hope it stays open but get the feeling it's touch and go. If it hadn't been for the USA and the RAF, being honest it would probably have closed in the 50's. It used to be said that one reason for Prestwick staying open was that there was very little fog there and it could be used for aircraft diverted from other airports during foggy spells. Don't know if that still matters. If it closes down, do you think they will preserve the bits where The King walked?Was The King's visit not just an early rendition flight?Mibees that's the future for Prestwick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 Was The King's visit not just an early rendition flight? Mibees that's the future for Prestwick... How dare you! Elvis a criminal? He never shot Old Shep, you know. He had to put the gun down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 I was going on the basis that if passenger flight cease the whole site becomes untenable. This has been stated a fair bit in media over the last wee while, can't recall all the details. Mibees it's just spin though and as you say it could still remain as freight and maintenance? You have to think Ryanair are paying very little and the idea that they can bring more airlines to Prestwick and make money is fanciful. Why wouldn't they go to Glasgow or Edinburgh- most airlines have voted with their feet and ended up there anyway! The answer usually is because it is cheaper to use Prestwick's but then Prestwick can't cover its costs and makes a loss. I think a cargo hub / aerospace park is the way forward for Prestwick. Investing money in the rail station and in the terminal is a waste for me. Prestwick lost £9m last year. Highland and Island airports only lost £800K! I can understand the government keeping the latter going on social need but Prestwick seems a lost case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 As I said earlier - PIK may not be a prospect for investment SHORT-term, but demolish it, & what happens in 20/30/40 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) He posted in the "Strange" thread about 10 mins ago. Make of that what you will..... Edited June 22, 2014 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 He still hasn't answered a straight question I asked him over THREE days ago! "Strange" indeed - or. he is running out of arguements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 I saw Fergus Ewing getting a battering this morning over this and I enjoyed it greatly as he attempted to plug the tickets for his event that no-one wants to go and see. £650,000 of Scottish taxpayers money has been pissed away on three days worth of pretendy fighting that only 3,500 people have paid £20 a head to see on a site where the capacity is 45,000. At the same time as turning their back on the Bannockburn celebrations, the Scottish public are opting instead to go see the UK Armed Forces Day celebrations in Stirling where the tickets are completely free and they can honour real heroes rather than the mythical ones down the road. http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/bannockburn-tickets-target-hit-by-armed-forces-day-1-3385326 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) And there's another lie. You just can't stop yourself from telling lies, can you? Actually we don't know if it's a lie. The article says UNDER 3,800. Admittedly I misread it but I might still be accurate Surely even you won't disagree that this is a shocking waste of money though - something that is a common thread throughout the SNP and the Yes Campaign. Edited June 22, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Actually we don't know if it's a lie. The article says UNDER 3,800. Admittedly I misread it but I might still be accurate Surely even you won't disagree that this is a shocking waste of money though - something that is a common thread throughout the SNP and the Yes Campaign. Unlike Trident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Unlike Trident? I don't regard the defence of the UK and the Western World as a waste of money. I'm not sure why you do? Have you not seen the news in Iraq and in the Crimea and seen what happens when your defences are left woefully short. I'm glad we are a nuclear power. Edited June 22, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Dickson says "let's nuke em" Problems solved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 I don't think he has ever been to either of those places. Of course he has. He is considerably richer than you!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think he's actually trying to say that if we kick the nukes out after a yes vote then the rUK will annex Dumfries and Galloway. I wasn't but since you mention it, it might be worth pointing out that opinion polls in the Crimea show that support for becoming an annexe of Russia traditionally sat at around 65%. Support in the Scottish Borders for the Union has been shown to be at 71% and 70%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 I saw Fergus Ewing getting a battering this morning over this and I enjoyed it greatly as he attempted to plug the tickets for his event that no-one wants to go and see. £650,000 of Scottish taxpayers money has been pissed away on three days worth of pretendy fighting that only 3,500 people have paid £20 a head to see on a site where the capacity is 45,000. At the same time as turning their back on the Bannockburn celebrations, the Scottish public are opting instead to go see the UK Armed Forces Day celebrations in Stirling where the tickets are completely free and they can honour real heroes rather than the mythical ones down the road. http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/bannockburn-tickets-target-hit-by-armed-forces-day-1-3385326 Real heroes? I think not. No such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 How much is armed forces day costing? If 3500 people have paid 20 quid at least some money has been raised towards the cost. If armed forces day is free who is footing the bill? Glad I don't stay in Stirling council area... Look at the bigger picture not the soundbites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.