Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We will do our own housekeeping - but not until the war in Ukraine is resolved.
Mr. L, if it's very close, the stewards will have their hands full this season.
I put up with officious bureaucrats of varying degrees of competence and consistency making decisions for a living. I am not really interested in doing the same with my time off.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
The government has done a good job on some fronts. On others it has done very poorly.
Tolerance of corruption leads to more corruption. That's how it becomes endemic. And once it is endemic democracy effectively ceases to function.
Christo Grozev linked to an alleged letter from an FSB insider on the Ukraine war, and without commenting on authenticity, it's a very interesting read. I translated and lightly edited it. Starts with a bit of whimper on agri policy, but it sure picks up.
In another thread the conclusion is “quite probably real, or if not a better fake than we’ve seen before” (the longer the fake, the greater the chance for mistakes - this one is long)
Literally just came here to post the same letter, though in an alternate translation:
A pertinent point is that the logistics - and specifically the roads - cannot cope with the size of convoys that would be needed to supply the size of force that Russia would need to deploy inside Ukraine to achieve its objectives.
Suggests that having a modern, efficient road system may not be a strategic advantage in Eastern Europe.
The issue with the roads is that one very burnt out tank takes a lot of road out - and it’s one of many things Russia isn’t in a position to fix as the supplies aren’t there
Sure, but having several well paved dual carriageways with hard shoulders leading to your largest city would make a difference. Not that it’s relevant except in HYUFD’s fever dreams but Glasgow has around five (though some may argue with well paved).
You'd only have to knock out the M74 though. The Army wouldn't go up the east coast because they'd be worried about the Tyne tunnel penalty charge
I fear that you’re dismissing the Faslane beachhead and the loyalist Edinburgh enclave far too easily.
Don't give him ideas.
Having said that, the Moray coast was apparently a potential Op Sea Lion target, littered with beach defenses. You'd have to garrison those, too.
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
Not so good on actual support for refugees, apparently.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
The government has done a good job on some fronts. On others it has done very poorly.
Tolerance of corruption leads to more corruption. That's how it becomes endemic. And once it is endemic democracy effectively ceases to function.
Do it in a small way or for a 'good' reason and it spirals. Zero tolerance. It's why petty shit around the expenses scandal were still important, why the attempt to excuse Paterson for what he did (or claim his personal tragedy meant it should be ignored) was so bad.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
What, not their party members? Controversial view.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
And he's done a *great job* for all the Russian money still sloshing about in London unthreatened by proper sanctions.
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We know where Boris's first loyalty goes, and his second, third and fourth.
Boris.
In some situations, that's a benefit- he can't be bought, since that requires consistency and loyalty. I really doubt we're in a Harold Wilson Mad Rumours scenario.
In terms of public opinion, Boris's good crisis hasn't helped him that much in the polls yet. That might change, or it might be that the public just don't trust him any more.
It would be deserved karma that having escaped his just punishment for his lockdown excesses, his earlier excesses with the Russians should bring his downfall.
Here is an example of what the Russian propoganda machine is up to at home.
Russian news site Avia.pro reports that: “Ukranian “Azov” terrorists blasted residential building in Mariopol, 200 people under the ruins.” There was no Azov terrorist attack in Mariopol yesterday. The picture is actually of School No.25 in Zhytomyr, several hundred kilometers away, hit by a Russian rocket 48 hours ago. The same rocket that means I need to buy new windows for my house!
(Azov are a “Ukranian Nationalist terrrorist group”, which does exist, mostly attacking Russian soldiers that have been in Ukraine since 2014, but exists a lot in Russian reporting of what’s going on at the moment).
Recall it was “Chechen terrorist bombings” which brought Putin to power. Though there was a slim possibility those were real.
"Obsessed? Frightened? Wakeful? War in Ukraine sparks return of doomscrolling As happened with Covid, the compulsive need to keep up with the Russian invasion is taking a toll on our mental health"
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
You should tell the Russians that, they are literally saying that the UK is the lead for sanctions.
This was reported by the BBC yesterday.
Russia's foreign ministry has released a statement taking direct aim at the British government for its support of Ukraine.
Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokesperson, says Russia won't forget the UK's cooperation with Kyiv, or with what she calls the "ultra-nationalist forces of Ukraine", according Russian media.
"The sanctions hysteria in which London plays one of the leading, if not the main, roles, leaves us no choice but to take proportionately tough retaliatory measures," she said, adding that British interests in Russia would be "undermined" by Moscow's response.
The official narrative in Russia is that the threat to civilians in Ukraine comes not from Russian forces, but from "Ukrainian nationalists".
The UK government has provided weapons and financial aid to Ukraine amid the invasion.
Hating Boris is fine, lots of us do, but you are still talking rubbish.
Christo Grozev linked to an alleged letter from an FSB insider on the Ukraine war, and without commenting on authenticity, it's a very interesting read. I translated and lightly edited it. Starts with a bit of whimper on agri policy, but it sure picks up.
In another thread the conclusion is “quite probably real, or if not a better fake than we’ve seen before” (the longer the fake, the greater the chance for mistakes - this one is long)
Literally just came here to post the same letter, though in an alternate translation:
A pertinent point is that the logistics - and specifically the roads - cannot cope with the size of convoys that would be needed to supply the size of force that Russia would need to deploy inside Ukraine to achieve its objectives.
Suggests that having a modern, efficient road system may not be a strategic advantage in Eastern Europe.
The issue with the roads is that one very burnt out tank takes a lot of road out - and it’s one of many things Russia isn’t in a position to fix as the supplies aren’t there
Sure, but having several well paved dual carriageways with hard shoulders leading to your largest city would make a difference. Not that it’s relevant except in HYUFD’s fever dreams but Glasgow has around five (though some may argue with well paved).
You'd only have to knock out the M74 though. The Army wouldn't go up the east coast because they'd be worried about the Tyne tunnel penalty charge
I fear that you’re dismissing the Faslane beachhead and the loyalist Edinburgh enclave far too easily.
Don't give him ideas.
Having said that, the Moray coast was apparently a potential Op Sea Lion target, littered with beach defenses. You'd have to garrison those, too.
All the way round the Aberdeenshire coast too. Inverbervie, Newburgh, Cruden Bay, Peterhead.
Christo Grozev linked to an alleged letter from an FSB insider on the Ukraine war, and without commenting on authenticity, it's a very interesting read. I translated and lightly edited it. Starts with a bit of whimper on agri policy, but it sure picks up.
In another thread the conclusion is “quite probably real, or if not a better fake than we’ve seen before” (the longer the fake, the greater the chance for mistakes - this one is long)
Literally just came here to post the same letter, though in an alternate translation:
A pertinent point is that the logistics - and specifically the roads - cannot cope with the size of convoys that would be needed to supply the size of force that Russia would need to deploy inside Ukraine to achieve its objectives.
Suggests that having a modern, efficient road system may not be a strategic advantage in Eastern Europe.
The issue with the roads is that one very burnt out tank takes a lot of road out - and it’s one of many things Russia isn’t in a position to fix as the supplies aren’t there
Sure, but having several well paved dual carriageways with hard shoulders leading to your largest city would make a difference. Not that it’s relevant except in HYUFD’s fever dreams but Glasgow has around five (though some may argue with well paved).
You'd only have to knock out the M74 though. The Army wouldn't go up the east coast because they'd be worried about the Tyne tunnel penalty charge
I fear that you’re dismissing the Faslane beachhead and the loyalist Edinburgh enclave far too easily.
Don't give him ideas.
Having said that, the Moray coast was apparently a potential Op Sea Lion target, littered with beach defenses. You'd have to garrison those, too.
All the way round the Aberdeenshire coast too. Inverbervie, Newburgh, Cruden Bay, Peterhead.
I think the building of defences all up the east coast was pretty reflexive and may also have been calculated to have been good for morale. With hindsight the idea that an amphibious assault could have been launched across the North Sea seems pretty crazy.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
"Obsessed? Frightened? Wakeful? War in Ukraine sparks return of doomscrolling As happened with Covid, the compulsive need to keep up with the Russian invasion is taking a toll on our mental health"
It's a fair point. In the first months of Covid obsessing over comparitive stats was draining. Here's hoping for some truly stupid news to give us an opportunity to laugh.
I see that the Threads bombing scene on Youtube has received tens of thousands of hits over the past fortnight.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
I read an article / comment that China had bought much more than usual quantities of US soya production before the Ukraine incursion. They must have known what the Russians were planning.
Mr. Divvie, I'm reminded of reading about differing rail gauges slowing logistical progress from that direction in WWII.
.
It's why "We'd have won the war but for that lunatic Hitler" argument that German generals made after WWII was bullcrap. The generals shared Hitler's underestimation of the logistical difficulties of invading Russia, and the Russian capacity for resistance.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
56.4% of voters did NOT vote Tory.
No Prime Minister has seen over 50% of voters vote for their government since Baldwin in 1935 (if you exclude Cameron in 2010 as voters did not know there would be a Tory-LD coalition until after polling day). So what? We elect our PMs and governments by FPTP not PR
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
You should tell the Russians that, they are literally saying that the UK is the lead for sanctions.
This was reported by the BBC yesterday.
Russia's foreign ministry has released a statement taking direct aim at the British government for its support of Ukraine.
Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokesperson, says Russia won't forget the UK's cooperation with Kyiv, or with what she calls the "ultra-nationalist forces of Ukraine", according Russian media.
"The sanctions hysteria in which London plays one of the leading, if not the main, roles, leaves us no choice but to take proportionately tough retaliatory measures," she said, adding that British interests in Russia would be "undermined" by Moscow's response.
The official narrative in Russia is that the threat to civilians in Ukraine comes not from Russian forces, but from "Ukrainian nationalists".
The UK government has provided weapons and financial aid to Ukraine amid the invasion.
Hating Boris is fine, lots of us do, but you are still talking rubbish.
Well of course they are! The British sanctions are heaviest in the world! So you don't need to tighten them any more....
BTW, it is the *security services* whose opinion matters, not mine. I am reporting what the Sunday Times say that the *security services* are saying.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
Given everyone in the world was talking about it before the Olympics started, that seems deeply implausible. As for ‘gaining nothing’, see my first point.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
Not so good on actual support for refugees, apparently.
It is a difficult reverse ferret:
2015: refugees f*** off! 2016: East Europeans f*** off! 2019: East Europeans f*** off again! 2021: refugees f*** off again!
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
I read an article / comment that China had bought much more than usual quantities of US soya production before the Ukraine incursion. They must have known what the Russians were planning.
My guess is they had some foreknowledge too, but I'm not sure, and unless sure I don't think it was a wise step to make the allegation.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
Doesn't prevent him being a crook.
You can, after all, famously, fool some of the people all of the time. And Johnson didn't fool most of us.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
Given everyone in the world was talking about it before the Olympics started, that seems deeply implausible. As for ‘gaining nothing’, see my first point.
On this I am not sure anything needed to be explicitly said by either Russia or China- it woudl have been obvious to Putin to think it would upset the chinese and probably obvious to China he would know that and delay. After all we discuss all kinds of weird strategic chit on here which is a lot more deeper than that so fail to see how its anything other than not needed to be discussed becasue its obvious type of issue. Its one thing for speculation on Twitter and here of some deal but typical of loud mouth US to say this just because-- not helpful either
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
56.4% of voters did NOT vote Tory.
No Prime Minister has seen over 50% of voters vote for their government since Baldwin in 1935. So what? We elect our PMs and governments by FPTP not PR
So no prime minister has been a national leader since 1935 then? Apart from coalition ones, of course. Perhaps.
Small wonder the country has gone steadily downhill since the war...... We need a national leader now, young HY. The best you Tories can come up with is Johnson.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
You should tell the Russians that, they are literally saying that the UK is the lead for sanctions.
This was reported by the BBC yesterday.
Russia's foreign ministry has released a statement taking direct aim at the British government for its support of Ukraine.
Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokesperson, says Russia won't forget the UK's cooperation with Kyiv, or with what she calls the "ultra-nationalist forces of Ukraine", according Russian media.
"The sanctions hysteria in which London plays one of the leading, if not the main, roles, leaves us no choice but to take proportionately tough retaliatory measures," she said, adding that British interests in Russia would be "undermined" by Moscow's response.
The official narrative in Russia is that the threat to civilians in Ukraine comes not from Russian forces, but from "Ukrainian nationalists".
The UK government has provided weapons and financial aid to Ukraine amid the invasion.
Hating Boris is fine, lots of us do, but you are still talking rubbish.
"The sanctions hysteria in which London plays one of the leading, if not the main, roles" is about rhetoric, not actual sanctions. You seem to be assuming that everything the PM says is entirely congruent with the facts
I think the building of defences all up the east coast was pretty reflexive and may also have been calculated to have been good for morale. With hindsight the idea that an amphibious assault could have been launched across the North Sea seems pretty crazy.
The North Sea can certainly be treacherous, but a quick look at the geography of Aberdeenshire and it's quickly apparent that it's a good place to establish a beachhead. Good terrain for tanks, and it would have needed the British defences to look in two directions at once. If your planes are trying to bomb Panzers in Aberdeenshire, they are a long way away from bombing targets in Normandy. I honestly can't think of a better place to start an invasion of Britain. Napoleon liked fighting from the middle, but mostly you don't want to be in the middle of a pincer.
The last time mainland Britain was invaded from two directions at once one invasion failed, the other succeeded. With the benefit of a view from 1000 years later, it might have been better for the citizenry if the results had been reversed.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
Not so good on actual support for refugees, apparently.
It is a difficult reverse ferret:
2015: refugees f*** off! 2016: East Europeans f*** off! 2019: East Europeans f*** off again! 2021: refugees f*** off again!
2022: East European refugees: ????
But we're LEADING THE WORLD in still refusing Ukranians the ability to seek freely refuge here.
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
I read an article / comment that China had bought much more than usual quantities of US soya production before the Ukraine incursion. They must have known what the Russians were planning.
My view is they knew they were planning summat. So did we. I don't think that's proof they knew exactly what. They didn't tell their citizens in Kyiv to get out for instance. Nor did they pass comment for nearly 48 hours ISTR. Suggests they were blindsided by the sheer scale of the invasion, and hadn't come up with an agreed line.
King Cole, it's a fascinating counterfactual to consider.
Prior to the Norman Conquest, the leading external cultural influence on the British Isles was Viking.
Also, from a French perspective, would a seriously weakened Normandy have allowed for more rapid expansion of the tiny realm the king of France held at this time, or weakened the monarchy even more? Would another Norse leader have sought the French throne?
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
Given everyone in the world was talking about it before the Olympics started, that seems deeply implausible. As for ‘gaining nothing’, see my first point.
On this I am not sure anything needed to be explicitly said by either Russia or China- it woudl have been obvious to Putin to think it would upset the chinese and probably obvious to China he would know that and delay. After all we discuss all kinds of weird strategic chit on here which is a lot more deeper than that so fail to see how its anything other than not needed to be discussed becasue its obvious type of issue. Its one thing for speculation on Twitter and here of some deal but typical of loud mouth US to say this just because-- not helpful either
But China helped Ukraine. By ensuring that the Russian invasion was delayed until after the Olympics the mud became more of an issue at the start.
"Obsessed? Frightened? Wakeful? War in Ukraine sparks return of doomscrolling As happened with Covid, the compulsive need to keep up with the Russian invasion is taking a toll on our mental health"
Well probably. But I think with good reason. At the start of Covid, I was genuinely worried. Was it just going to be a minor sniffle (that seemed unlikely) or was it going to be The Stand? Likewise a week ago, was this just going to be the Football war (and that seems unlikely now) or is it going to be Threads?
I think the building of defences all up the east coast was pretty reflexive and may also have been calculated to have been good for morale. With hindsight the idea that an amphibious assault could have been launched across the North Sea seems pretty crazy.
The North Sea can certainly be treacherous, but a quick look at the geography of Aberdeenshire and it's quickly apparent that it's a good place to establish a beachhead. Good terrain for tanks, and it would have needed the British defences to look in two directions at once. If your planes are trying to bomb Panzers in Aberdeenshire, they are a long way away from bombing targets in Normandy. I honestly can't think of a better place to start an invasion of Britain. Napoleon liked fighting from the middle, but mostly you don't want to be in the middle of a pincer.
Ah, but that's only a recent switch.
The genius of the SNP was going from a rural party - "Tartan Tories" - to what we have today.
There are some Tory attack lines that mirror the levelling up agenda. Not dualling the A96, not noticing the big storm in Aberdeenshire and so on. Central belt v RoS.
King Cole, it's a fascinating counterfactual to consider.
Prior to the Norman Conquest, the leading external cultural influence on the British Isles was Viking.
Also, from a French perspective, would a seriously weakened Normandy have allowed for more rapid expansion of the tiny realm the king of France held at this time, or weakened the monarchy even more? Would another Norse leader have sought the French throne?
I attended a WEA Zoom on that very subject fairly early in the pandemic. Consensus was that England would have been more Scandinavian and it was doubtful whether it would have been so aggressive towards Wales and Ireland. We didn't spend a lot of time on the effect on what is now France.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
Not so good on actual support for refugees, apparently.
It is a difficult reverse ferret:
2015: refugees f*** off! 2016: East Europeans f*** off! 2019: East Europeans f*** off again! 2021: refugees f*** off again!
2022: East European refugees: ????
But we're LEADING THE WORLD in still refusing Ukranians the ability to seek freely refuge here.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
Not so good on actual support for refugees, apparently.
It is a difficult reverse ferret:
2015: refugees f*** off! 2016: East Europeans f*** off! 2019: East Europeans f*** off again! 2021: refugees f*** off again!
2022: East European refugees: ????
You're missing out the 2,500 Hong Kongers that we are welcoming every week. Don't they count?
King Cole, possibly, although the Vikings did set up multiple slave market cities in Ireland and someone might have sought to unify them.
I've been playing Thrones of Britannia and tried to do just that, and it ain't easy I can tell you (I'm not good at strategy games, and it's definitely started taking pointers from Crusader Kings).
I wonder if Zelenskyy would accept a deal that gives Russia a land corridor to Crimea in exchange for pulling all other Russian troops out of the country? Would allow Putin to save face. Effectively an extension of the occupation that would not be recognised by the international community.
We would make promises to Zelenskyy that sanctions will stay on Russia until they withdraw from Ukraine completely. That we will not unfreeze Russian foreign reserves unless they pay for the restoration of Kharkiv, Lukansk, Donetsk and Mariupol.
A really important interview by Sophie Raworth on BBC with Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of Defence Staff.
I believe everyone on this forum would be well advised to watch the interview on playback, and be re-assured as much as I have been by his professionalism
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I'm coming round to just getting a second referendum out the way.
Remain = it's settled, we can have normal political debate again and we get inward investment.
Leave = a deeply entertaining battle with Westminster which is similar to the nonsense we have to put up with anyway. Sturgeon gets toppled and Angus MacNeil leads us to "hard independence". I move to Australia.
I think the building of defences all up the east coast was pretty reflexive and may also have been calculated to have been good for morale. With hindsight the idea that an amphibious assault could have been launched across the North Sea seems pretty crazy.
The North Sea can certainly be treacherous, but a quick look at the geography of Aberdeenshire and it's quickly apparent that it's a good place to establish a beachhead. Good terrain for tanks, and it would have needed the British defences to look in two directions at once. If your planes are trying to bomb Panzers in Aberdeenshire, they are a long way away from bombing targets in Normandy. I honestly can't think of a better place to start an invasion of Britain. Napoleon liked fighting from the middle, but mostly you don't want to be in the middle of a pincer.
I think it’s a distance thing, the longer your force is at sea the more vulnerable it is, and fighter cover would have been negligible over NE Scotland. The Heer and Kriegsmarine almost came a cropper over the comparatively shorter distances involved in Norway.
Aiui the possibility was wargamed and it was thought that a Scottish invasion should be left to fight it’s way down the island rather than opposed in situ.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We will do our own housekeeping - but not until the war in Ukraine is resolved.
So it might be a long time before we need to get our house in order.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
Not so good on actual support for refugees, apparently.
It is a difficult reverse ferret:
2015: refugees f*** off! 2016: East Europeans f*** off! 2019: East Europeans f*** off again! 2021: refugees f*** off again!
2022: East European refugees: ????
You're missing out the 2,500 Hong Kongers that we are welcoming every week. Don't they count?
Be interesting if the estimates pan out
our central range analysis estimated between 123,000 and 153,700 BN(O) status holders and their dependants coming in the first year and between 258,000 and 322,400 over five years
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I have to give some credit to Douglas Ross - no longer DRoss - in standing up to the cesspit that is the so-called unionist party south of the wall. As you say, there is no alternative being offered to independence that isn't a broken status-quo.
This isn;t so much a Scottish issue as it is a Union issue. We cut off NI from GB and we're at risk now of seeing Sinn Fein in office across the intra-Irish border and all that means. Scotland is restless and getting more so. Wales has found its own feet and is pushing its own identity.
King Cole, possibly, although the Vikings did set up multiple slave market cities in Ireland and someone might have sought to unify them.
Indeed; the sexual imbalance in Viking society was odd. Even allowing, as per the Sagas, for Vikings who habitually travelled between Scandinavia, Iceland, the Hebrides and Ireland to have 'wives' in at least two or three of those places.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
56.4% of voters did NOT vote Tory.
No Prime Minister has seen over 50% of voters vote for their government since Baldwin in 1935. So what? We elect our PMs and governments by FPTP not PR
So no prime minister has been a national leader since 1935 then? Apart from coalition ones, of course. Perhaps.
Small wonder the country has gone steadily downhill since the war...... We need a national leader now, young HY. The best you Tories can come up with is Johnson.
Johnson has got a bigger mandate and is more of a national leader than most PMs.
The 43.6% he got in 2019 has only been matched or exceeded in the last 50 years once ie by Thatcher in 1979
A couple of dozen destroyed Russian vehicles in that convoy, including a white transit type van. Not many escort vehicles seen either, just a BTR at the back. Those logistic problems are serious, and this is near Kharkiv so not far from the border.
I wonder if Zelenskyy would accept a deal that gives Russia a land corridor to Crimea in exchange for pulling all other Russian troops out of the country? Would allow Putin to save face. Effectively an extension of the occupation that would not be recognised by the international community.
Notably that would include areas beyond what Russia has officially annexed (Crimea) but I cannot imagine that would stop Russia from being pleased to accept that as it's in the Oblast (great name) for one of the 'independent' states.
I presume a big stumbling block would be Maripol is in that corridor, and from BBC that's one of Ukraine's main ports and a sizable city, so tough to concede.
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I'm coming round to just getting a second referendum out the way.
Remain = it's settled, we can have normal political debate again and we get inward investment.
Leave = a deeply entertaining battle with Westminster which is similar to the nonsense we have to put up with anyway. Sturgeon gets toppled and Angus MacNeil leads us to "hard independence". I move to Australia.
I believe another distinguished PBer has mentioned Oz as a retirement destination for raddled, old bon viveurs? You might even be on the same plane!
The last time mainland Britain was invaded from two directions at once one invasion failed, the other succeeded. With the benefit of a view from 1000 years later, it might have been better for the citizenry if the results had been reversed.
Always worth reminding people in 1066 England was the wealthiest and most prosperous country in northern and western Europe. It had been free of conflict of more than a generation, there was an active and lucrative wool trade with Flanders and English silver was generally accepted as currency across Europe.
That's why it was viewed as ripe for plunder by the likes of William of Normandy and Harald Hardrada - as a source of economic power to fund other conflicts.
It's also worth remembering a lot of the Saxon nobility had considerable contacts with Normandy - Edward the Confessor had spent his exile in Normandy and knew William well. Some of the Saxon nobles survived because of their contacts with the Normans and that's why most organised resistance collapsed after Hastings (or Senlac).
Had Hardrada killed Harold and defeated the Saxons and William landed at Pevensey (neither knew of the other's plans or motivations), what then? A decisive battle for control of England or a negotiated dissection of the country along the lines of the old Danelaw with Hardrada's stooge, Harold's brother, Tostig, ruling from York and William ruling the prosperous south and west (Wessex) from Winchester?
A couple of dozen destroyed Russian vehicles in that convoy, including a white transit type van. Not many escort vehicles seen either, just a BTR at the back. Those logistic problems are serious, and this is near Kharkiv so not far from the border.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
56.4% of voters did NOT vote Tory.
No Prime Minister has seen over 50% of voters vote for their government since Baldwin in 1935. So what? We elect our PMs and governments by FPTP not PR
So no prime minister has been a national leader since 1935 then? Apart from coalition ones, of course. Perhaps.
Small wonder the country has gone steadily downhill since the war...... We need a national leader now, young HY. The best you Tories can come up with is Johnson.
Johnson has got a bigger mandate and is more of a national leader than most PMs.
The 43.6% he got in 2019 has only been matched or exceeded in the last 50 years once ie by Thatcher in 1979
Your figures are, of course right. Doesn't alter the basic premise; that he's unfit for the job, though. And he's not a leader, he's a schemer.
I note on the most recent seat projections Labour at 306 doesn't need SNP support if they can get Confidence & Supply from the LDs (324 would be a small majority in the absence of the SF MPs).
Starmer is therefore also in a position to close down a second independence referendum.
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I have to give some credit to Douglas Ross - no longer DRoss - in standing up to the cesspit that is the so-called unionist party south of the wall. As you say, there is no alternative being offered to independence that isn't a broken status-quo.
This isn;t so much a Scottish issue as it is a Union issue. We cut off NI from GB and we're at risk now of seeing Sinn Fein in office across the intra-Irish border and all that means. Scotland is restless and getting more so. Wales has found its own feet and is pushing its own identity.
So we either reform the union or it will die.
We didn't, it was the EU who demanded the Irish Sea border for a UK and EU trade deal. Now the UK government is correctly considering whether to invoke Article 16.
As I have just posted No is still ahead on the latest Scottish independence poll, though the UK government will correctly continue to refuse indyref2 and respect the once in a generation 2014 vote.
As for Ireland, it does not matter what the Republic of Ireland votes for, as it left the UK a century ago (albeit I suspect FG and FF will still get enough seats combined to keep out SF). In NI though Unionist parties still win more votes than Nationalist parties and more seats at Stormont.
Wales still sees Plaid getting nowhere, both the 2 main parties Labour and Tory are Unionist and indeed Boris is the most popular Tory PM in Wales for generations. Hence the Tories got their highest voteshare in Wales since 1918 in 2019 and their most seats in Wales since 1983
I wonder if Zelenskyy would accept a deal that gives Russia a land corridor to Crimea in exchange for pulling all other Russian troops out of the country? Would allow Putin to save face. Effectively an extension of the occupation that would not be recognised by the international community.
Notably that would include areas beyond what Russia has officially annexed (Crimea) but I cannot imagine that would stop Russia from being pleased to accept that as it's in the Oblast (great name) for one of the 'independent' states.
I presume a big stumbling block would be Maripol is in that corridor, and from BBC that's one of Ukraine's main ports and a sizable city, so tough to concede.
Not many good options for them though.
The point is that we PROMISE to Zelenskyy we will keep the crippling sanctions until Russia withdraws completely since its obvious he would be signing the deal with a gun to his head. I include Crimea and Donbass in that. The key is whether we could get Zelenskyy to trust us on that.
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The Ukranians rate British assistance highly, and their opinion is the one that matters.
It's OK for Boris Johnson to be corrupt because the UK is supplying Ukraine with valuable military support is quite a take!
We all know that he's corrupt and a charlatan. But, when it comes to the Ukraine, the government has done a good job.
Not so good on actual support for refugees, apparently.
It is a difficult reverse ferret:
2015: refugees f*** off! 2016: East Europeans f*** off! 2019: East Europeans f*** off again! 2021: refugees f*** off again!
2022: East European refugees: ????
You're missing out the 2,500 Hong Kongers that we are welcoming every week. Don't they count?
Not refugees, British overseas passport holders. Albeit ones that were denied residence rights by Maggie in 1981.
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I'm coming round to just getting a second referendum out the way.
Remain = it's settled, we can have normal political debate again and we get inward investment.
Leave = a deeply entertaining battle with Westminster which is similar to the nonsense we have to put up with anyway. Sturgeon gets toppled and Angus MacNeil leads us to "hard independence". I move to Australia.
I believe another distinguished PBer has mentioned Oz as a retirement destination for raddled, old bon viveurs? You might even be on the same plane!
Haha, it would be mainly so my GF gets paid a decent salary for her Doctoring.
But it's rather like all the Americans who said they'd move to Canada if Trump got in. I'm always going to come back to Scotland.
"On TV they will say that this is a rally for the war and Putin)))
In Nizhnekamsk, workers went on strike because of "underpayments" as a result of a jump in the exchange rate"
First sign of disruption hitting Russian industry. More big pro-Ukraine rallies in occupied Ukraine today, the troops there must know that if they get violent it's not going to end well for them.
I note on the most recent seat projections Labour at 306 doesn't need SNP support if they can get Confidence & Supply from the LDs (324 would be a small majority in the absence of the SF MPs).
Starmer is therefore also in a position to close down a second independence referendum.
Labour won't offer a deal to the SNP. The SNP won't ask a deal from Labour.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
Thanks for these tips @NickPalmer . No harm in reading the other sides propoganda as well as our own. A more sceptical and cautious stance towards what we are hearing about the war is not a bad idea. A pessimist is never disappointed, as Sophie Ellis Bextor once remarked.
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I have to give some credit to Douglas Ross - no longer DRoss - in standing up to the cesspit that is the so-called unionist party south of the wall. As you say, there is no alternative being offered to independence that isn't a broken status-quo.
This isn;t so much a Scottish issue as it is a Union issue. We cut off NI from GB and we're at risk now of seeing Sinn Fein in office across the intra-Irish border and all that means. Scotland is restless and getting more so. Wales has found its own feet and is pushing its own identity.
So we either reform the union or it will die.
I agree again. This could get boring. The Union has to show its worth to people on a consistent basis, it is not enough to rely on sentiment or hanging on to nurse. In fairness, with the vaccination programs and the furlough schemes it did but these are the exceptions.
To take the Brexit arguments as an example remainers argued that access to the SM was an immense economic benefit to the UK. Some, such as me, questioned whether being a part of a system which resulted in an £80bn a year deficit for the UK was actually in our interests. For every gainer selling a service through Europe there were many losers.
If you apply that logic to Scotland does being a part of the UK SM actually work to our benefit? They take a very large percentage of our exports but we import even more and smaller, Scottish, businesses seem to struggle to thrive against bigger, more well funded competitors. In my own field of law we have seen many of the larger Scottish firms fall into branches of English based behemoths and there are several others showing more leg than is entirely decent hoping for the same.
What needs serious thought is how do we succeed in the UK SM in light of that competition or, for that matter, outside the UK when the competition remains every bit as ferocious. I was deeply disappointed with Kate Forbes' answer this week. To call her presentation vacuuous would be to insult the outer reaches of the Solar system but she at least showed some recognition of what is required, if no clear ideas of how to get there.
This is the real challenge for our political class but they completely ignore it, favouring a sterile, counterproductive and damaging constitutional debate instead.
Putin should take heart that even under the Soviet Union some leaders were able to be removed without being killed. Malenkov almost lived to see the end of the Soviet Union and Khruschev was 'retired'.
The last time mainland Britain was invaded from two directions at once one invasion failed, the other succeeded. With the benefit of a view from 1000 years later, it might have been better for the citizenry if the results had been reversed.
Always worth reminding people in 1066 England was the wealthiest and most prosperous country in northern and western Europe. It had been free of conflict of more than a generation, there was an active and lucrative wool trade with Flanders and English silver was generally accepted as currency across Europe.
That's why it was viewed as ripe for plunder by the likes of William of Normandy and Harald Hardrada - as a source of economic power to fund other conflicts.
It's also worth remembering a lot of the Saxon nobility had considerable contacts with Normandy - Edward the Confessor had spent his exile in Normandy and knew William well. Some of the Saxon nobles survived because of their contacts with the Normans and that's why most organised resistance collapsed after Hastings (or Senlac).
Had Hardrada killed Harold and defeated the Saxons and William landed at Pevensey (neither knew of the other's plans or motivations), what then? A decisive battle for control of England or a negotiated dissection of the country along the lines of the old Danelaw with Hardrada's stooge, Harold's brother, Tostig, ruling from York and William ruling the prosperous south and west (Wessex) from Winchester?
I think it would have depended on how much damage the Saxons had done to both invaders. If not a lot, then I think William might have tried for the lot. If bother armies weakened, then I think they'd have settled for a split. And that might, of course, have led to a Greater 'Scotland".
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I have to give some credit to Douglas Ross - no longer DRoss - in standing up to the cesspit that is the so-called unionist party south of the wall. As you say, there is no alternative being offered to independence that isn't a broken status-quo.
This isn;t so much a Scottish issue as it is a Union issue. We cut off NI from GB and we're at risk now of seeing Sinn Fein in office across the intra-Irish border and all that means. Scotland is restless and getting more so. Wales has found its own feet and is pushing its own identity.
So we either reform the union or it will die.
We didn't, it was the EU who demanded the Irish Sea border for a UK and EU trade deal. Now the UK government is correctly considering whether to invoke Article 16.
We divided GB and NI. Not the EU. As for A16, so what. That is the start of a change in relations, not an end. We need to find a way to square the circle and refuse to do the obvious.
The Ukraine war demonstrates that we need allies and alliances more than ever. Yet the cosplay Thatcher gets invited to the European Council and doesn't even have the good grace to mention the EU or that she was at the European Council when tweeting about it.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
I read an article / comment that China had bought much more than usual quantities of US soya production before the Ukraine incursion. They must have known what the Russians were planning.
My guess is they had some foreknowledge too, but I'm not sure, and unless sure I don't think it was a wise step to make the allegation.
More than the Russian army seem to have had? Seems unlikely
Putin should take heart that even under the Soviet Union some leaders were able to be removed without being killed. Malenkov almost lived to see the end of the Soviet Union and Khruschev was 'retired'.
In search of diverse information streams, I'm keeping an eye on Interfax, which is quite obviously pro-Russian with a business slant - e.g. news of a new China-backed credit card to replace Mastercard. And, just to confirm the impression that Putin is deeply dependent on oligarchs, is an announcement that economic crime will no longer be a criminal offence:
Also interesting: a Russian poll suggesting that support for the war is growing (deep scepticism is appropriate for all the obvious reasons), but the only reason for it that has significant support is "stopping NATO deploying bases in Ukraine" - even if the poll is entirely rigged, it's significant that that's the key issue in their eyes, rather than support for the mini-republics or denazification (both score under 20%). That suggests that a deal where Ukraine commits not to join NATO may be something Putin could sell back home.
I've been keeping an eye on Chinese and Indian news services (in English) too. The Chinese seem to have lessened their covarage, and are upset at allegations that they connived in the launch date of Putin's war. Whether true or not that seems to have been a mis-step from the US. The Indians seem to be presenting much of the destruction, but also presenting Russia's claims of precision strikes.
Why would that be a US misstep - as it’s probably true, why pretended it’s not ?
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Well, firstly it gains nothing.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
Given everyone in the world was talking about it before the Olympics started, that seems deeply implausible. As for ‘gaining nothing’, see my first point.
On this I am not sure anything needed to be explicitly said by either Russia or China- it woudl have been obvious to Putin to think it would upset the chinese and probably obvious to China he would know that and delay. After all we discuss all kinds of weird strategic chit on here which is a lot more deeper than that so fail to see how its anything other than not needed to be discussed becasue its obvious type of issue. Its one thing for speculation on Twitter and here of some deal but typical of loud mouth US to say this just because-- not helpful either
But China helped Ukraine. By ensuring that the Russian invasion was delayed until after the Olympics the mud became more of an issue at the start.
"Obsessed? Frightened? Wakeful? War in Ukraine sparks return of doomscrolling As happened with Covid, the compulsive need to keep up with the Russian invasion is taking a toll on our mental health"
And also on the Ukrainians mental health, don't forget that.
The guardian are right though - being faced with an existential crisis like this - bigger than anything we have known in our lifetimes before - requires a healthy mind. I took a break from doomscrolling and went to the gym and for a swim yesterday, followed by a long walk, and felt immeasurably better as a result.
It would be deserved karma that having escaped his just punishment for his lockdown excesses, his earlier excesses with the Russians should bring his downfall.
Boris Johnson is lucky. He's having a good war.
Don't confuse the photo opportunities and spin with the reality. It's too early to draw such a conclusion.
Indeed. The UK overall, together with 5 eyes, has made many good calls over Ukraine in the past few months. However there was and is a major Russian subversion and propaganda operation targeting the UK. There are significant figures that have many questions to answer concerning their long term relationships with Russia, notably Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings, Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees Mogg, George Osborne, Alex Salmond and many others. Once this war is over, there needs to be a full investigation. The Prime Minster´s choice of Alexander Lebedev as a member of the House of Lords was heavily criticised at the time and now looks -at best- very ill judged.
Churchill had "quite" a good war, but in 1945 the voters had not forgotten the mistakes in the lead up to war, so I would not automatically equate respect for the performance of the UK security service and military with support or even respect for Johnson. The Mail`s bigging up of Johnson today is triumphalist rubbish and offensive to the Ukrainians taking shelter from the savage and brutal Russian attacks. This war still seems far from over (the intelligence assesment is many weeks and even months ahead) and Putin is still very much alive and dangerous. Many awful things are still happening and while the survival of the Ukrainian army and state is incredible (and indeed inspirational), that is not the same as a victory. 2 million refugees, cities in ruins, incalcuable economic damage, including the loss of the spring sowing, the coming months will be very hard for Ukraine.
Neither is the post war world looking that good for Britain. Germany will take on a far more powerful military role and that inevitably will diminish the role of the UK. Leaving the EU reduces the economic capacity of the UK by a significant percentage, and even if we no longer squabble with Brussels, (which under the Tories is not a given), Britain will still find its ability to acheive key strategic goals sharply diminished. And all of that is before we talk about Covid and partygate. This isnt the Falklands.
The last time mainland Britain was invaded from two directions at once one invasion failed, the other succeeded. With the benefit of a view from 1000 years later, it might have been better for the citizenry if the results had been reversed.
Always worth reminding people in 1066 England was the wealthiest and most prosperous country in northern and western Europe. It had been free of conflict of more than a generation, there was an active and lucrative wool trade with Flanders and English silver was generally accepted as currency across Europe.
That's why it was viewed as ripe for plunder by the likes of William of Normandy and Harald Hardrada - as a source of economic power to fund other conflicts.
It's also worth remembering a lot of the Saxon nobility had considerable contacts with Normandy - Edward the Confessor had spent his exile in Normandy and knew William well. Some of the Saxon nobles survived because of their contacts with the Normans and that's why most organised resistance collapsed after Hastings (or Senlac).
Had Hardrada killed Harold and defeated the Saxons and William landed at Pevensey (neither knew of the other's plans or motivations), what then? A decisive battle for control of England or a negotiated dissection of the country along the lines of the old Danelaw with Hardrada's stooge, Harold's brother, Tostig, ruling from York and William ruling the prosperous south and west (Wessex) from Winchester?
I think it would have depended on how much damage the Saxons had done to both invaders. If not a lot, then I think William might have tried for the lot. If bother armies weakened, then I think they'd have settled for a split. And that might, of course, have led to a Greater 'Scotland".
Surely this what if stuff cannot go back too far as too many event forks afterwards. Chaos theory?
That’s because 90% of the country doesn’t have to live under her regime.
That would be more persuasive if it were not for the fact that Scots agree with the other islanders:
Net favourability
Sturgeon 13% Scottish Government 7% Anas Sarwar 1% Keir Starmer -10 Patrick Harvie -15 Alex Cole-Hamilton -15 Lorna Slater -15 Rishi Sunak -19 Douglas Ross -21 UK Government -50 Alex Salmond -62 Boris Johnson -62
You have to take into account Scottish voters being brainwashed by virulently pro SNP broadcasters and press though.
I thought it was those devils in the schools programming the youth?
All organs of the state and society are of course in the service of the SNP, as they should be in any well run totalitarian nation.
Indeed. The only thing that can save us is their utter and complete incompetence.
So I remain quite sanguine.
They’re utterly and completely incompetent.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Its not a happy situation is it? Poor Scotland.
Perhaps Unionists should do *a lot* more in providing an alternative prospectus? Of course being in the position of having policies vicariously implemented without the ghastly inconvenience of getting voters to support them makes you lazy.
For once we are in agreement Divvie. No second referendum is not a platform for government. Scotland badly needs a real choice and they are not really being offered one by any of the Unionist parties. What we get is a critique from the sidelines (which is easy enough) but no thought through alternatives.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
I have to give some credit to Douglas Ross - no longer DRoss - in standing up to the cesspit that is the so-called unionist party south of the wall. As you say, there is no alternative being offered to independence that isn't a broken status-quo.
This isn;t so much a Scottish issue as it is a Union issue. We cut off NI from GB and we're at risk now of seeing Sinn Fein in office across the intra-Irish border and all that means. Scotland is restless and getting more so. Wales has found its own feet and is pushing its own identity.
So we either reform the union or it will die.
We didn't, it was the EU who demanded the Irish Sea border for a UK and EU trade deal. Now the UK government is correctly considering whether to invoke Article 16.
We divided GB and NI. Not the EU. As for A16, so what. That is the start of a change in relations, not an end. We need to find a way to square the circle and refuse to do the obvious.
The Ukraine war demonstrates that we need allies and alliances more than ever. Yet the cosplay Thatcher gets invited to the European Council and doesn't even have the good grace to mention the EU or that she was at the European Council when tweeting about it.
No it was the EU who demanded the Irish Sea border rather than using a technological solution and Art 16 is therefore increasingly the likely response from the UK government.
It is NATO which is the key alliance we need to contain Putin (not least as it also includes us, Norway, Iceland, the US, Canada and Turkey unlike the EU)
Morning all! I posted the Times splash on Boris being a security risk when they tweeted it - massive. Having scanned the overnight thread it seems to be desperately ignored by some of you
Remember that after Russia poisoned the Skripals with a WMD on British soil, Big Dog skipped security briefings to meet Lebedev senior the KGB man. And then ignores security concerns about ennobling Lebedev junior who gets all his money from his dad the KGB man. Who gets the security services *to withdraw* their problematic concerns about Lebedev junior.
This is the problem. The Tories can't act properly against Russia because they shill for Russia. The press reposts how the Tories are "delighted" with the Ukraine was as being a great opportunity to move on from problems and portray the PM as Thatcher. "Delighted"?
How many anti tank weapons do we actually have to supply before you give up on this nonsense? Our government has been vigorous in supporting Ukraine and done as much as most to cause them problems. Such polling as is available from Ukraine itself supports this. The pressure put on BP is another good example. If our government was bought by the Russians they are getting less for their money than they are in Ukraine. Its just nonsense.
The PM overruled the security services to give a peerage to someone who has shown him any number of personal financial favours. That does not mean that he was bought by the Russians, just by Lebedev.
I would much prefer it if we had a prime minister who had not been bought by anybody. You know, one whose first loyalty was to the British people.....
We have a Prime Minister who was given the biggest mandate by the British people in 2019 since Blair in 2001 actually.
56.4% of voters did NOT vote Tory.
No Prime Minister has seen over 50% of voters vote for their government since Baldwin in 1935 (if you exclude Cameron in 2010 as voters did not know there would be a Tory-LD coalition until after polling day). So what? We elect our PMs and governments by FPTP not PR
Then hopefully you will agree with me that FPTP is a load of shit!
56.4% is a higher figure than the 55% who voted No at IndyRef, and the 51.9% who voted Leave in 2016.
Comments
Tolerance of corruption leads to more corruption. That's how it becomes endemic. And once it is endemic democracy effectively ceases to function.
Having said that, the Moray coast was apparently a potential Op Sea Lion target, littered with beach defenses. You'd have to garrison those, too.
What’s the alternative?
Ah, ok, fair enough.
Over observance of the diplomatic niceties towards totalitarian regimes over the years is quite possibly one of the things which encouraged Putin’s desperate gamble.
Although, the sprint race nonsense is putting me off even more than the Abu Dhabi daftness.
Boris.
In some situations, that's a benefit- he can't be bought, since that requires consistency and loyalty. I really doubt we're in a Harold Wilson Mad Rumours scenario.
In terms of public opinion, Boris's good crisis hasn't helped him that much in the polls yet. That might change, or it might be that the public just don't trust him any more.
Though there was a slim possibility those were real.
Secondly it's very difficult to judge degree in what might have been done. I think it's entirely plausible that the Chinese specifically said to Putin that they'd be annoyed if he caused a distraction from the Olympics. But they could have said that without any knowledge at all of what his plans were.
This was reported by the BBC yesterday.
Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokesperson, says Russia won't forget the UK's cooperation with Kyiv, or with what she calls the "ultra-nationalist forces of Ukraine", according Russian media.
"The sanctions hysteria in which London plays one of the leading, if not the main, roles, leaves us no choice but to take proportionately tough retaliatory measures," she said, adding that British interests in Russia would be "undermined" by Moscow's response.
The official narrative in Russia is that the threat to civilians in Ukraine comes not from Russian forces, but from "Ukrainian nationalists".
The UK government has provided weapons and financial aid to Ukraine amid the invasion.
Hating Boris is fine, lots of us do, but you are still talking rubbish.
They’re even targeting Olympic facilities.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1500307867974385664
BTW, it is the *security services* whose opinion matters, not mine. I am reporting what the Sunday Times say that the *security services* are saying.
As for ‘gaining nothing’, see my first point.
https://www.ft.com/content/6ea18680-0f46-4af1-a3f1-d92d2daaae15
2015: refugees f*** off!
2016: East Europeans f*** off!
2019: East Europeans f*** off again!
2021: refugees f*** off again!
2022: East European refugees: ????
BMG also avoid this trap but have who for whom.
You can, after all, famously, fool some of the people all of the time. And Johnson didn't fool most of us.
Small wonder the country has gone steadily downhill since the war...... We need a national leader now, young HY. The best you Tories can come up with is Johnson.
With the benefit of a view from 1000 years later, it might have been better for the citizenry if the results had been reversed.
How do we recover education from its current morass?
What are our priorities in healthcare?
What do we do (beyond what the Lord Advocate has bravely done) to reduce drug deaths?
Above all, how does a Scottish economy thrive in a country where the talent, money, investment and skills are inexorably sucked into London?
I am not seeing many answers from anyone. It's depressing.
A destroyed/abandoned Rosgvardia column in Kharkiv with OMON riot gear.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1500240859492757506
Nor did they pass comment for nearly 48 hours ISTR.
Suggests they were blindsided by the sheer scale of the invasion, and hadn't come up with an agreed line.
Prior to the Norman Conquest, the leading external cultural influence on the British Isles was Viking.
Also, from a French perspective, would a seriously weakened Normandy have allowed for more rapid expansion of the tiny realm the king of France held at this time, or weakened the monarchy even more? Would another Norse leader have sought the French throne?
But I think with good reason. At the start of Covid, I was genuinely worried. Was it just going to be a minor sniffle (that seemed unlikely) or was it going to be The Stand?
Likewise a week ago, was this just going to be the Football war (and that seems unlikely now) or is it going to be Threads?
The genius of the SNP was going from a rural party - "Tartan Tories" - to what we have today.
There are some Tory attack lines that mirror the levelling up agenda. Not dualling the A96, not noticing the big storm in Aberdeenshire and so on. Central belt v RoS.
We didn't spend a lot of time on the effect on what is now France.
Edit - I see I'm late to the party.
We would make promises to Zelenskyy that sanctions will stay on Russia until they withdraw from Ukraine completely. That we will not unfreeze Russian foreign reserves unless they pay for the restoration of Kharkiv, Lukansk, Donetsk and Mariupol.
I believe everyone on this forum would be well advised to watch the interview on playback, and be re-assured as much as I have been by his professionalism
Remain = it's settled, we can have normal political debate again and we get inward investment.
Leave = a deeply entertaining battle with Westminster which is similar to the nonsense we have to put up with anyway. Sturgeon gets toppled and Angus MacNeil leads us to "hard independence". I move to Australia.
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1500397101615833090?s=20&t=bpe0dwnWn-flGN5-DdWJVg
Aiui the possibility was wargamed and it was thought that a Scottish invasion should be left to fight it’s way down the island rather than opposed in situ.
our central range analysis estimated between 123,000 and 153,700 BN(O) status holders and their dependants coming in the first year and between 258,000 and 322,400 over five years
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/24/media-factsheet-hong-kong-bnos/
This isn;t so much a Scottish issue as it is a Union issue. We cut off NI from GB and we're at risk now of seeing Sinn Fein in office across the intra-Irish border and all that means. Scotland is restless and getting more so. Wales has found its own feet and is pushing its own identity.
So we either reform the union or it will die.
The 43.6% he got in 2019 has only been matched or exceeded in the last 50 years once ie by Thatcher in 1979
A different video of that convoy:
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1500258525750206465?t=4FzaeRlywEW3mIyex3oQ7w&s=19
I presume a big stumbling block would be Maripol is in that corridor, and from BBC that's one of Ukraine's main ports and a sizable city, so tough to concede.
Not many good options for them though.
That's why it was viewed as ripe for plunder by the likes of William of Normandy and Harald Hardrada - as a source of economic power to fund other conflicts.
It's also worth remembering a lot of the Saxon nobility had considerable contacts with Normandy - Edward the Confessor had spent his exile in Normandy and knew William well. Some of the Saxon nobles survived because of their contacts with the Normans and that's why most organised resistance collapsed after Hastings (or Senlac).
Had Hardrada killed Harold and defeated the Saxons and William landed at Pevensey (neither knew of the other's plans or motivations), what then? A decisive battle for control of England or a negotiated dissection of the country along the lines of the old Danelaw with Hardrada's stooge, Harold's brother, Tostig, ruling from York and William ruling the prosperous south and west (Wessex) from Winchester?
Plus another couple of thousand more in that massive stuck convoy, which most likely end up captured.
And he's not a leader, he's a schemer.
Starmer is therefore also in a position to close down a second independence referendum.
As I have just posted No is still ahead on the latest Scottish independence poll, though the UK government will correctly continue to refuse indyref2 and respect the once in a generation 2014 vote.
As for Ireland, it does not matter what the Republic of Ireland votes for, as it left the UK a century ago (albeit I suspect FG and FF will still get enough seats combined to keep out SF). In NI though Unionist parties still win more votes than Nationalist parties and more seats at Stormont.
Wales still sees Plaid getting nowhere, both the 2 main parties Labour and Tory are Unionist and indeed Boris is the most popular Tory PM in Wales for generations. Hence the Tories got their highest voteshare in Wales since 1918 in 2019 and their most seats in Wales since 1983
But it's rather like all the Americans who said they'd move to Canada if Trump got in. I'm always going to come back to Scotland.
"On TV they will say that this is a rally for the war and Putin)))
In Nizhnekamsk, workers went on strike because of "underpayments" as a result of a jump in the exchange rate"
First sign of disruption hitting Russian industry. More big pro-Ukraine rallies in occupied Ukraine today, the troops there must know that if they get violent it's not going to end well for them.
To take the Brexit arguments as an example remainers argued that access to the SM was an immense economic benefit to the UK. Some, such as me, questioned whether being a part of a system which resulted in an £80bn a year deficit for the UK was actually in our interests. For every gainer selling a service through Europe there were many losers.
If you apply that logic to Scotland does being a part of the UK SM actually work to our benefit? They take a very large percentage of our exports but we import even more and smaller, Scottish, businesses seem to struggle to thrive against bigger, more well funded competitors. In my own field of law we have seen many of the larger Scottish firms fall into branches of English based behemoths and there are several others showing more leg than is entirely decent hoping for the same.
What needs serious thought is how do we succeed in the UK SM in light of that competition or, for that matter, outside the UK when the competition remains every bit as ferocious. I was deeply disappointed with Kate Forbes' answer this week. To call her presentation vacuuous would be to insult the outer reaches of the Solar system but she at least showed some recognition of what is required, if no clear ideas of how to get there.
This is the real challenge for our political class but they completely ignore it, favouring a sterile, counterproductive and damaging constitutional debate instead.
And that might, of course, have led to a Greater 'Scotland".
The Ukraine war demonstrates that we need allies and alliances more than ever. Yet the cosplay Thatcher gets invited to the European Council and doesn't even have the good grace to mention the EU or that she was at the European Council when tweeting about it.
Seems unlikely
The guardian are right though - being faced with an existential crisis like this - bigger than anything we have known in our lifetimes before - requires a healthy mind. I took a break from doomscrolling and went to the gym and for a swim yesterday, followed by a long walk, and felt immeasurably better as a result.
Churchill had "quite" a good war, but in 1945 the voters had not forgotten the mistakes in the lead up to war, so I would not automatically equate respect for the performance of the UK security service and military with support or even respect for Johnson. The Mail`s bigging up of Johnson today is triumphalist rubbish and offensive to the Ukrainians taking shelter from the savage and brutal Russian attacks. This war still seems far from over (the intelligence assesment is many weeks and even months ahead) and Putin is still very much alive and dangerous. Many awful things are still happening and while the survival of the Ukrainian army and state is incredible (and indeed inspirational), that is not the same as a victory. 2 million refugees, cities in ruins, incalcuable economic damage, including the loss of the spring sowing, the coming months will be very hard for Ukraine.
Neither is the post war world looking that good for Britain. Germany will take on a far more powerful military role and that inevitably will diminish the role of the UK. Leaving the EU reduces the economic capacity of the UK by a significant percentage, and even if we no longer squabble with Brussels, (which under the Tories is not a given), Britain will still find its ability to acheive key strategic goals sharply diminished. And all of that is before we talk about Covid and partygate. This isnt the Falklands.
It is NATO which is the key alliance we need to contain Putin (not least as it also includes us, Norway, Iceland, the US, Canada and Turkey unlike the EU)
56.4% is a higher figure than the 55% who voted No at IndyRef, and the 51.9% who voted Leave in 2016.