daltontrees

Whatever I think of Big J's politics, I'd say the views are not at all chaotic and, far from being impossible to follow, are clear and well argued. I think you are consistently and repeatedly missing the point. The tories got more votes than anyone else, but that's not a majority of votes. Majority means more than 50%. The current system does nothing for the 55% (the majority) of voters who did not vote for the tories. It is impossible for FPTP not to result in constant resentment unless the majority is almost unanimous.

Maybe in the Land of the Giants!

I have this in my garden and know it well, it's not teh same as the OP's.

Sorry, I've got it out of my system now and, since I can do precisely f&%$ all to influence things, I can wait.

Yes there's an income band about £6,000 wide where the english and scottish rates are different. And the higher rate is paid only on the part of income in that band. I stand corrected.

Well, just looked, and tax does go to scottish government.

I am anti 'first past the post', not pro independence. It can never achieve societal harmony. And that includes in an independence referendum. And Brexit. I didn't know tax went straight to the scottish parliament, I thought it went to the UK government based on UK tax legislation and the UK parliament decided what goes to Scotland. Could be wrong, though. I just pay it. I'm not in any higher bracket.

I know. That's why I clarified it....

A glance at the map of votes is going to explain that where you are there is a strong tory leaning and where I am is strong SNP. That cna explain why we are gauging different opinions. I don't see point in debating the pros and cons of independence and EU with you, as you seem to be strongly partisan. Even though I didn't say I was pro-independence you have assumed I am. Your comment about my relative, is trite. He was a professor at the leading economic institution in Scotland, and spent a lifetime being paid by industry to advise them on strategic direction and specifics. That counts as 'doing'. Also you are perhaps suggesting that those who don't teach, 'can', which is patently untrue. The original question in this post, which no-one really addressed, was whether only scots should vote on independence. I tried to answer it in a very specific way, relating to the economic rationale for England keeping Scotland. We are constantly told that England supports Scotland financially . If the English poplation could vote confidentially and were told that England supports Scotland to the tune of £4,000 per capita or whatever the figure is, I think they'd say drop Scotland. Despite what you say, I didn't express certainty, but I'd certainly bet on it. We can agree to disagree, as we may never get to find out, and it is futile to argue about politics on the internet with strangers, it never changes anyone's opinion and only neds with someone misinterpreting or pouncing on minutiae.

I'm not advocating it, I am saying that I gauge support for it.

Try "There's support in Scotland for Scotland to be independent of the UK AND a member of the EU."

You could just as well be talking about conservatives in Westminster, who only got 40 something %... I am no lover of the SNP givernment, but I'd rather we made an arse of things ourselves up here than have an arse made of it for us down there. We'd grow up quick enough. I think it's a mistake to assume that post-independence SNP would be in charge. Voting for independence is not the same as voting for SNP. On the other hand voting for SNP IS voting for independence. And, if the SNP can take anything from the landslide it's probably that there's Scottish support for an independent Scotland in the EU. SNP would be nuts to assume support for independence outside EU. Persnally I reckon Scotland outside UK would have struggled. Inside UK and outsde EU it definitley will. Outside UK and in EU would be a strong niche opportunity and we'd do OK. What really f****ed me off more than anything else in the run-up to the election was leaflets and Facebook adverts from the torys saying vote for them to block a referendum. A 5 year old could work out that that's because they feared losing a referendum. If they are confident of persuading Scotland to stay in the UK they should allow a referendum. And allow it very soon. No matter what they do now about Brexit, every stumble, downturn and economic casualty of Brexit (or pereived to be) will be resented by a large part of Scotland. It will become a festering sore that will not heal itself. I have spoken to hundreds of fellow Scots from all waks of life inteh last few days, and I am genuinely surprised at the near-universal resentment of people up here. I have a close relative who is an economics lecturer who was dead against independence a few years ago, but now would vote the other way. We debate it on impassionate economic grounds and for him to change his mind based on the behaviour of the tories in Wesminster since the Brexit referendum speaks volumes to me. It's not about FREEDOM, it's about refusing to sign the English economic suicide pact. And to answer the original question, I'd love to see an indicative pan-UK vote on Scottish independence. I bet England would ditch Scotland (and Northern Ireland) on economic grounds.

Here's another one from the RSA Edinburgh gallery. The detail is incredible. OK it's not a painting, but bits of it have been painted. It's called Family Tree by Robert Powell.

The other one's called 'The Cornfield'.

Who's the artist(s)?

Excellent, considering the pish that wins the Turner Prize these days.

And on the Baobab theme, here's 'Baobab Bridge' by Ade Adesina. Apologies for the reflections in the glass.

Starting with this one, a bit grim but beautiful. "The Last Bao" by Ade Adesina and Tomasz Wrobel

I was at a gallery recently with a diverse set of paintings with threes in them. I was going to stick them on to the end of the trees in the british landscape thread, but what all of them have in common is that they are figuratively trees, and they're not really landscape paintings. I thought it might be nice for folk to have somewhere to add any pictures the found that use trees in a non-literal way to say something or other about something or other. I appreciate I may be the only person that uses this thread, but hopefully others will be as intrigued or keen to share.

Someone had to. It's the law.

Terrible picture. But by association I would suggest investigating Daedalopsis confragrosa.

Looks like Goat Willow to me.

This has been discussed many times, especially on UKTC, and the consensus is that there is no proof that it is right, or wrong. If anything, it is believed that as a simple rule of thumb for people working near trees in the USA decades ago the idea was to measure stem diameter in inches, and that gave a RPA radius in feet. It's a bit like the NJUG rule of thumb, girth x 4 = standoff radius. Which works out at 12.5 times diameter. During all the discussion I've read and heard about it, no-one has come up with a more appropriate number. That's not to say it shouldn't be modified, with justification, for shallower or deeper soils, veteran or ancient trees or other relevant circumstances.

There's that misunderstanding I was talking about.

Meanwhile, the answer is no. The only situation that miht involve the tree owner recovering costs from the trencher is if the tree had to be taken down in an emergency because of its condition adn the cost of take-down was greater than it would be in a less urgent situation. In that case I could see that part of the cost (the diference between non-urgent and urgent take-down costs) might form a valid part of a claim. That's notteh same as saying the trencher has no liability. In this case I have suggested the circumstances for liability for harm or damage. In England the law is more towards strict liability, but in Scotland it's a bit more civilised. England's slowly catching up. And if there's a moral, it is that even though there may be no liability for take-down costs there may well be liability in negligence and that no-one should blunder in and render a neighbour's tree dangerous, eexpecting to rely on an infantile misunderstanding of (say) Lemmon v Webb. Consider the consequences of your actions before acting, then act reasonably, and the law will be on your side.