Latest news with #Hanoverian
Cision Canada
04-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Cision Canada
RCMP Name the Foal contest produces nine names for our new foals!
OTTAWA, ON, /CNW/ - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is happy to announce the winners and winning names of our 2025 Name the Foal contest. Canadian kids 14-years-old and younger, once again participated in large numbers, as did classrooms across the country. The RCMP received more than 1,600 entries from individual kids and more than 100 entries from schools. This year, the winning names were given to nine new foals born recently at the RCMP's horse breeding farm in Pakenham, Ontario. In alphabetical order, the full list of winning entries is: Badge – Sam, age 10, Port Hood, Nova Scotia Baffin – Kai, age 7, Iqaluit, Nunavut Balmoral – Chosen by Musical Ride staff Beckett – Paisley, age 4, Burton, New Brunswick Bellamy – Kindergarten class of Dorchester Consolidated School, New Brunswick (school class winner) Binesi – Joshua, age 12, Cantley, Quebec Bison – Forrest, age 12, Sioux Lookout, Ontario Boreal – Keegan, age 6, Lloydminster, Alberta Bravo – Megan, age 7, Ottawa, Ontario Contest winners will receive a 2025 Musical Ride horseshoe, a picture of the horse they named, and a certificate signed by RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme. The RCMP has been breeding its own horses for more than 80 years. In addition to being one of the largest licensed Hanoverian horse breeders in the country, the breeding program is internationally recognized for producing some of the finest Hanoverians in Canada.
The National
16-06-2025
- Business
- The National
Why using sterling after independence would be huge strategic mistake
Before moving on to consider how the domestic private sector surplus can be balanced to increase the share taken by the household sector and the poorest deciles in the population, there are some other issues to cover regarding the overseas sector, recognising that the rUK will be part of it once Scotland is independent. Despite the best efforts of the Scottish Currency Group and others to persuade the Scottish Government and SNP leadership that the introduction of our own currency immediately after independence is critical, it is clear they remain committed to continued use of sterling. READ MORE: Tories rage as Scottish primary head suggests Union flag is 'sectarian' This is a huge strategic mistake, bearing comparison to Bonnie Prince Charlie's decision at Culloden to take on the Hanoverian army in battle on a bog. To understand why the use of sterling would be a strategic mistake, we need to look again at what GDP is made up of, and why continued use of sterling would adversely affect GDP growth which the SNP sees as the primary goal of economic policy. GDP=G+I+C+(X-M). This is government spending net of tax, plus private sector investment, plus consumer spending, plus exports minus imports. Without our own currency G cannot grow to any great extent. The SNP are committed to 'balancing the books', which means spend minus tax = zero; G = 0. They say we will borrow to finance public spending. Such borrowing But this will be in sterling at interest rates set by the Bank of England, UK banks and other institutional investors. Debt repayments and interest will be an outflow from the Scottish economy and a rise in the overseas surplus, benefiting the rest of the UK. SNP objectives to 'grow the economy' cannot, therefore depend on G. They will depend heavily on I – and much of that would rely on foreign investment, including from the rUK. While this would bring additional capital into the Scottish economy it comes at the cost of an outflow of profits. At present that outflow istotals 6% of GDP – £11bn per year. Scotland would also need to increase exports to earn the sterling currency to pay the debt, meaning our resources are then allocated to meet demand in the rest of the UK and elsewhere rather than being used to meet the needs of our own people. This cannot be a route to the creation of a wellbeing economy or to the eradication of poverty. These are the economic characteristics typical of a colony. This would be no more than a constitutional form of independence, not real independence based on political and economic sovereignty. Choosing to continue to use sterling rather than introduce a Scottish currency would crush our economy, leaving the domestic private sector with a smaller share of the overall non-government sector surplus. Continued use of sterling for anything more than a few weeks after independence would deliver austerity on steroids. Of course, the Unionists know this. They need say nor do nothing – they can just wait for the SNP to walk into a trap of their own making. As in 2014 they can, correctly, argue that independence without your own currency isn't independence at all. While a commitment to our own currency will prompt 'Project Fear' to argue it will be a 'weak currency', at least then there can be a proper discussion about economic policies, enabled by the currency, that support the value of and confidence in the currency and enable the start of a journey towards a wellbeing economy and the eradication of poverty. With the benefit of our own currency, Scottish governments would have the capacity to increase G, leading directly to growth in GDP. With no necessity to 'balance the books' tax need not be more than needed to prevent inflation. The only real constraint on G is the availability of resources to bring into productive use – once all resources have been used, more government spending would cause inflation. The 'deficit' created by spending more than taxing is matched by an equivalent surplus in the non-government sector. The important discussion then is how the non-government sector surplus is shared so that every citizen can benefit from the prosperity and how the resources we have at our disposal are best used to eradicate poverty and increase the wellbeing of all. Next time, we will return to the subject of how the domestic private sector surplus can be increased and allocated in a more balanced manner between financial, industrial and household sectors, with the goal of reducing inequality and increasing wellbeing.
CTV News
04-06-2025
- General
- CTV News
Spruce Meadows welcomes new foals – and you can help name them
Calgary's Spruce Meadows is offering equestrian fans another chance to name some future champions and win a prize package to this year's Masters Tournament. (Supplied) A Calgary show jumping facility has three new additions and it's inviting the public to help name them. Spruce Meadows is holding a competition to name three Hanoverian foals, future show jumpers at the facility. The contest is open to all Canadians, excluding Quebec residents, aged 18 or older. Anyone under 18 can enter the contest, too, but a parent or legal guardian is needed to accept the prize. Only one name per foal may be submitted with each entry, officials say. Submissions will be judged between Aug. 9 and 17 and must follow the naming conventions for the Hanoverian breed: each foal's name must begin with the same letter as its sire's name. Some of the previous names of foals include Uptown Girl (2024), J'Adore (2023) and Caffeine Boost (2022). Winners will be selected on Aug. 22. Prize packages include tickets to the 2025 Masters Tournament at Spruce Meadows, airfare (where applicable), ground transportation and up to four nights' accommodation in Calgary for the event, which runs from Sept. 3 to 7.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No leader for 300 years has done more to undermine our interests than Starmer
For the first time in three centuries – since the Hanoverian kings made Britain serve German interests – we are ruled by a political and administrative elite that does not put this nation first. Our other rulers, whether they were kings, aristocrats or parliamentarians, took it for granted that their duty was to Britain. They laboured long and hard for the country in which they had a stake. But not today. Sir Keir Starmer's 'reset' is only the latest example of decisions made since 2005 that obey other priorities. The Net Zero utopia is the most dangerous. The Chagos Islands fiasco – now 'on hold' – is the most incomprehensible. The 'reset' with the European Union is merely the most predictable. Michel Barnier predicted years ago that Starmer would lead Britain back into the EU. I was naïve about Brexit. I thought a democratic decision would be honoured in good faith. I hoped that lowered immigration would accelerate improvement in education and training for neglected British communities. But the former Labour Europe minister Denis MacShane, with whom I appeared in my first Brexit debate in Cambridge in 2016, saw more clearly: 'It doesn't matter how people vote,' he said smugly, 'the Deep State won't let it happen.' Sure enough, the Deep State – let's call it the Blob, that indistinguishable mass of politicians, officials, and lobbyists– have won a victory. I was doubly naïve. I thought that the British electorate could not simply be told to vote again and change their mind, as happened to the Irish and the Danes. Technically that has been true. But instead, our vote is simply ignored, like the French and Dutch votes in 2005. We are not being given the opportunity of a second referendum to rejoin the EU because that would require a proper campaign examining the pros and cons, and the BBC, for example, would be required to give a voice to all sides. In Greece and Italy, governments simply disobeyed their own voters and democracy was nullified. At least they had the excuse of being intimidated by brutal threats of financial destruction. What is Sir Keir Starmer's excuse? Can anyone suppose that his 'reset' is the outcome of a dispassionate analysis of Britain's needs, thrashed out in a hard-nosed negotiation with the EU? Or is it a desperate attempt to reach any deal to placate blinkered Remainers and allow Starmer to declare victory? It is the Chagos deal on a vast scale: we give away things of huge value, and then pay the beneficiaries to accept them. How they laugh! This reset floats on the ocean of misinformation with which the country has been inundated since 2016, and to which even some Leave voters have surrendered in despair. On one hand, propagandists declare that British trade has taken a huge 'hit' from Brexit – a 'hit' that can be found nowhere in the statistics. Goods exports have suffered not from Brexit, but from Whitehall's own policies, which have deliberately slashed exports of oil, cars and chemicals in the name of net zero, and decimated some of our major export industries by the highest energy costs in the developed world. On the other hand, the EU, economically stagnant, politically crippled and strategically impotent, is hailed as a miraculous cargo cult, which will shower down wealth from the skies and make us somehow more economically successful than any of its actual members. Can anyone follow the logic here? The EU's negotiators have ensured that what Starmer has presented as his gains are far outweighed by what we lose. As with EU research funds, we will doubtless pay in more than we get out. Does anyone think that the strategic defence fund will be different? Will the EU fund frigates and submarines we need for our defence rather than tanks made in France and Germany? How many rich European kids will be subsidised by British taxpayers to take coveted university places? How much of a regulatory burden will be placed on our struggling economy for decades to come without any choice by us? But don't worry: we might be able to use e-gates when we go on holiday, and rock stars will roam the Continent unhindered. The frivolity of this whole exercise is utterly depressing. Have we as a country ceased to be able to think seriously and make proper decisions on matters of historic importance? Are we now incapable of distinguishing sense from nonsense? The Labour Party once contained people like Attlee, Bevin, Gaitskill, Barbara Castle and not least Peter Shore. Listen to Shore's 1975 speech at the Oxford Union on You Tube: he spoke with wit, certainly, but also with a seriousness of mind now extinct in Labour ranks. This 'reset' is depressing enough for its superficiality. But it is not just about trivial gains and losses. Above all it displays careless indifference to fundamental British values. The greatest of these is the belief that the people, finally, decide. This has been a golden thread in our history: Magna Carta; the Glorious Revolution; the Great Reform Bill; the People's Budget; Women's Suffrage. Part of this is myth, critics might say, but it is a healthy myth, an aspiration to democracy and a warning to politicians that they are not the masters. But this week the people did not decide. Who did? Keir Starmer. He is counting not on popular consent but on popular apathy. In short, the significance of the 'reset' goes far beyond its details, many of which will be trivial. It is significant as one sign – not the only one, alas – that our fundamental political values are despised. So I return to my opening thought. They are being despised by a governing Blob that no longer cares much about its country. 'Lives there a man with soul so dead?' asked Robert Burns. Yes, all too many. They are a post-national, globalised, post-democratic (that follows inevitably) elite happiest behind closed doors. The EU is their Eden. The Opposition must not only say that it will reverse every concession that damages the national interest, as Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have rightly done. I am sure they both mean it: it is Farage's raison d'etre and Badenoch was often the only Tory minister trying to make Brexit work. But words are cheap. Badenoch is a planner, and she must explain in detail exactly how to extract us from this sorry mess and reassert popular sovereignty. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
