(1) Buy the F35 (2) Buy the Saab Grippen (3) Fuck around attempting to make the Eurofughter Typhoon into something it isn't and waste billions (4) Do nothing
My view - fwiw - is that option (2) is probably the best, quickest and most cost efficient route forward. And while it wouldn't create true fifth gen fighter, the reality is that a decent fourth gen one - that doesn't suffer from a long list of defects and low uptime - would serve Germany very well.
The GAF have two requirements:
1. Replace the Buchel wing Tornado IDS with a platform cleared for B61 carriage and release under NATO's nuclear weapon sharing program.
2. Replace the Schleswig wing Tornado ECR with a DEAD/SEAD capable platform.
Gripen can fulfill neither of these missions.
At one point last year the thinking was F/A-18E for the B61 mission and EA-18G for the ECR/SEAD mission. This actually makes quite a lot of sense as its a common platform and they get all of the USN economies of scale.
Now the situation has developed since AKK left office and the favoured plan appears to be F-35A for Buchel and a new ECR version of Typhoon which only exists in PowerPoint form for Schleswig. They also have the 'Quadriga' Typhoon program going on which replaces 38 x Tranche 1 jets with the latest spec. in a job creation scheme that, much like Gripen, satisfies neither Requirement 1 nor Requirement 2.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the obscure suggestion that a colony of Varangian English settled on the shore of the Black Sea after the Norman Invasion.
Something like that. I can’t find it on Google, but it’s definitely a thing.
On the CTA we should just do what the Irish do to arrivals from Britain - demand documentary proof that you are entitled to travel without documentary proof. Between NI & U.K. the Ferry & Airline operators can police it (they require photo id anyway). Problem solved.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
On Ukraine - I missed this 'deal', but my instinct is that 'peace' is only going to be achieved if Russia are completely beaten. Otherwise we will quickly be in the same place again.
There's going to be a deal with Ukraine and a deal with the west. It is imperative that we do not remove sanctions until there is a commitment to remove all Russian military from near to the Ukraine border. I actually wonder if peacekeepers are necessary. We can tell what they are doing by satellite. This could give Ukraine security without having to join Nato.
I see Patel misled the Commons about the existence of a visa application centre at Calais - until obliged to correct herself by Yvette Cooper. And even then insisted that the latter had 'misheard'.
Oireland and the EU insisted on the hard border did they?
Bloody EU - we vote to leave, and then there's a border with the thing we voted not to be part of...
We could have used a technical solution as we proposed. The Irish demanded a hard border in the Irish Sea with Brussels.
Well if that in turn means no CTA until it is removed so be it.
The Republic of Ireland chose to leave the UK and chose to remove the Queen as Head of State and now chose to impose a hard border in the Irish Sea.
If that means Irish migrants face the same points system as every other nations' migrants then so be it
Inconveniently for you it was Boris Johnson who signed the agreement putting the border in the Irish Sea.
You really have posted a lot of bigoted, ignorant rubbish on here tonight.
It was the EU who demanded the hard border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal not the UK
We left. Borders is what leaving means. It has to go somewhere. It is not as if this wasn't raised over and over again before we left. Leavers kept insisting there was some magic solution. There isn't.
I see Patel misled the Commons about the existence of a visa application centre at Calais - until obliged to correct herself by Yvette Cooper. And even then insisted that the latter had 'misheard'.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Oireland and the EU insisted on the hard border did they?
Bloody EU - we vote to leave, and then there's a border with the thing we voted not to be part of...
We could have used a technical solution as we proposed. The Irish demanded a hard border in the Irish Sea with Brussels.
Well if that in turn means no CTA until it is removed so be it.
The Republic of Ireland chose to leave the UK and chose to remove the Queen as Head of State and now chose to impose a hard border in the Irish Sea.
If that means Irish migrants face the same points system as every other nations' migrants then so be it
Inconveniently for you it was Boris Johnson who signed the agreement putting the border in the Irish Sea.
You really have posted a lot of bigoted, ignorant rubbish on here tonight.
It was the EU who demanded the hard border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal not the UK
Because we didn't want a trade deal (due to the freedom of movement requirements) the EU required a border - with May’s deal the border was between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Bozo moved it
To be fair to BoJo, putting a techno border on the land border was bound to be infinitely harder than putting it at the sea and air ports. Putting the formalities at places where journeys paused anyway was always the sensible point. A transition that was exited when the land border was fixed would have gone on for a very long time.
But this isn't really about the inconvenience of goods travel across the Irish Sea, is it? It's about the symbolism, like most of you-know-what. That doesn't mean stupid; symbols are important. But problems with symbols rarely respond well to a technical fix.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Cue jokes about it not being free because the Scots charge for everything....
(And don't forget, the 1st Epping Foresters are willing to supply the bombs if you feel the parallel needs improving.)
So after yesterday's faux outrage from certain posters at my "forrin" skit on embedded racism, we have a long multi-post diatribe against the Irish followed by a pile on telling them to "fuck off".
Perhaps, demonstrably, we have a fear of the forrin after all...
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
It was actually Leon who first suggested removing the CTA last night.
Until the Irish Sea border is removed I merely agreed given the Republic of Ireland is the only foreign nation whose migrants to the UK can avoid our points based immigration system, yet is also not even in the Commonwealth either now or shares the Queen as head of state unlike say Australia, Canada and New Zealand who all face the same points based immigration system for migrants as everyone else except Ireland.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
I see Patel misled the Commons about the existence of a visa application centre at Calais - until obliged to correct herself by Yvette Cooper. And even then insisted that the latter had 'misheard'.
A member of this government misled the House?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Lets not tiptoe round the language. Patel Lied.
This is demonstrably why BigG was unwise to be ignoring all the evidence and relying on "but Patel said". Patel is a liar. Lied to the house on this very subject only yesterday. You cannot take anything said by most UK ministers as truth because of the sheer number of prima facie lies they tell.
Its a disgrace that things are like this - and that people who should know better provide liars with succour - but we are where we are.
See we can't be arsed to set up a visa office in Calais. I'm sure @NerysHughes will be here shortly to justify it. British citizen rescues his Ukrainian wife and children then struggles to get over that last strip of water between Calais and Dover. Embarrassing.
Oireland and the EU insisted on the hard border did they?
Bloody EU - we vote to leave, and then there's a border with the thing we voted not to be part of...
We could have used a technical solution as we proposed. The Irish demanded a hard border in the Irish Sea with Brussels.
Well if that in turn means no CTA until it is removed so be it.
The Republic of Ireland chose to leave the UK and chose to remove the Queen as Head of State and now chose to impose a hard border in the Irish Sea.
If that means Irish migrants face the same points system as every other nations' migrants then so be it
Inconveniently for you it was Boris Johnson who signed the agreement putting the border in the Irish Sea.
You really have posted a lot of bigoted, ignorant rubbish on here tonight.
It was the EU who demanded the hard border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal not the UK
Because we didn't want a trade deal (due to the freedom of movement requirements) the EU required a border - with May’s deal the border was between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Bozo moved it
To be fair to BoJo, putting a techno border on the land border was bound to be infinitely harder than putting it at the sea and air ports. Putting the formalities at places where journeys paused anyway was always the sensible point. A transition that was exited when the land border was fixed would have gone on for a very long time.
But this isn't really about the inconvenience of goods travel across the Irish Sea, is it? It's about the symbolism, like most of you-know-what. That doesn't mean stupid; symbols are important. But problems with symbols rarely respond well to a technical fix.
IIRC he intimated that a land-based techno solution was easy.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
It was actually Leon who first suggested removing the CTA last night.
Until the Irish Sea is removed I merely agreed given the Republic of Ireland is the only foreign nation whose migrants to the UK can avoid our points based immigration system, yet is also not even in the Commonwealth either now or shares the Queen as head of state unlike say Australia, Canada and New Zealand who all face the same points based immigration system for migrants as everyone else except Ireland
Outrageous concept as it is to a man of your morality, but we have a long-standing legal agreement with Ireland. A debt of honour between our nations. Made at a time when an Englishman's word was his Bond. Unlike now with you lot.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Scots didn't let themselves be independent when they voted 55% to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 vote.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
Who would have thought a Franco supporter would have had that bent opinion.
Every Conservative MP needs to read today’s #Times leader. They must tell @pritipatel & #BorisJohnson ‘s spads, PPS’s & whips the British people are appalled & ashamed at their failure to offer safe haven to #Ukraine refugees & we won’t forget come the next election https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1501095836784152581/photo/1
See we can't be arsed to set up a visa office in Calais. I'm sure @NerysHughes will be here shortly to justify it. British citizen rescues his Ukrainian wife and children then struggles to get over that last strip of water between Calais and Dover. Embarrassing.
Its nice you think of me but I do not think I have made any comment at all on this matter
Dr. Foxy, you may be aware that the 11th century was rather different to our own...
Incidentally, that Ukrainian/Channel story is rather wretched. Almost as if Patel's unfit for high office.
Yes. I posted it earlier. It is a disgrace. What effort is required to set up an office in Calais compared to those British citizens rescuing their Ukrainian relatives. It is appalling. Just heard on news that if they do now make their way to Paris or Brussels the next appointment is 17 March. What is wrong with these people.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.
Official German behaviour in 1933-45 was appalling, including in their Occupied Territories. However a converse experience; in the 70's I hosted, as an employer, several German students on work-experience, and never came across hostility to them
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.
Official German behaviour in 1933-45 was appalling, including in their Occupied Territories. However a converse experience; in the 70's I hosted, as an employer, several German students on work-experience, and never came across hostility to them
Well quite. Humans are generally quite tolerant. I'm not sure why you'd think less of the Irish in this regard.
Dr. Foxy, you may be aware that the 11th century was rather different to our own...
Incidentally, that Ukrainian/Channel story is rather wretched. Almost as if Patel's unfit for high office.
Yes. I posted it earlier. It is a disgrace. What effort is required to set up an office in Calais compared to those British citizens rescuing their Ukrainian relatives. It is appalling. Just heard on news that if they do now make their way to Paris or Brussels the next appointment is 17 March. What is wrong with these people.
What is wrong? 1. Basic level nasty spiteful politicians 2. Dog whistle racism has been a vote winner for them in the past 3. Lying about something so obviously untrue is now a reflex. Patel lies in the Commons as easily as she breathes in the Commons. They think we are so stupid that we will believe their lies. Clearly some people are.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.
Twenty years ago, a friend of mine got in trouble scuba diving off Malta. She is blonde, and was picked up by a coastguard helicopter.
Once in, they asked her: "Are you German?" Thinking that they might be about to chuck her out, she replied, "No, British." "Ah," they said, "We charge the Germans, not the British."
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues? I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.
As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself.
On a personal level, I am still extremely critical of his policies both towards Ukraine and on the domestic sanctions push. But people here see Britain as being a more reliable ally now than the US and the EU. I can only speak anecdotally of course, but it’s still my experience.
Britain’s treatment of refugees in particular remains a global disgrace, and I think if people here understood the extent of it, it would definitely change their perspective.
But sending NLAWs while the rest of the world was trying to appease Putin the fascist dictator has definitely won many hearts and minds here. Ukrainians wanted arms to defend their homes and their families, Britain supplied them. It’s black and white as far as many are concerned.
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
Who would have thought a Franco supporter would have had that bent opinion.
Off the scale again - way too much turnip wine with the cornflakes.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
People say that like it was a surprise. It was always the plan wasnt it? Wellington stood his ground knowing Blucher was coming and Blucher came as he trusted Wellington could hold the ground till he got there.
See we can't be arsed to set up a visa office in Calais. I'm sure @NerysHughes will be here shortly to justify it. British citizen rescues his Ukrainian wife and children then struggles to get over that last strip of water between Calais and Dover. Embarrassing.
Its nice you think of me but I do not think I have made any comment at all on this matter
Yes you did. You continuously defended it yesterday. It is appalling that you are so blinkered you will defend anything this government does . Patel and her operation is a disgrace in this respect, yet you defended our action on Ukrainian refugees.
Praise where deserved (supply of material) criticize when we do it wrong. We are doing this wrong. We are putting people through hell at the end of a traumatic journey.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.
Official German behaviour in 1933-45 was appalling, including in their Occupied Territories. However a converse experience; in the 70's I hosted, as an employer, several German students on work-experience, and never came across hostility to them
Well quite. Humans are generally quite tolerant. I'm not sure why you'd think less of the Irish in this regard.
I don't. Very friendly, hospitable people. The only somewhat unpleasant Irishman I've ever met was someone who came to UK to fight in Afghanistan. His uncle subsequently told me that he's experimented with explosives since being a small boy.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
And you can point to the line in the legislation that states that? And the line in our constitution where existing law is sacrosanct and cannot be amended rescinded or overturned?
I do NOT support Scottish independence. I am standing for election representing a party opposed to independence. But I am a democrat and the expressed will of the Scottish electorate is for another vote. Saying "you can't have the thing you voted for" - what you just posted - is the polar opposite of your previous statement of "The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters."
We want it, you are stopping us. Well not you are you are in Spain, but the party you support.
Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues? I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Wheest you silly old fool.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence. That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.
People say that like it was a surprise. It was always the plan wasnt it? Wellington stood his ground knowing Blucher was coming and Blucher came as he trusted Wellington could hold the ground till he got there.
Didn't realise it was a cunning plan. Thanks. Fact remains though that even Wellington admitted it was 'a damn close run thing'!
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Bigger and badder weapons than NATO?
Russia is fast losing its air force, based on the estimated losses so far. If that continues then bizarrely we could end up in a situation whereby the Ukrainians end up with air superiority - and who could have guessed that at the start?
As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself.
On a personal level, I am still extremely critical of his policies both towards Ukraine and on the domestic sanctions push. But people here see Britain as being a more reliable ally now than the US and the EU. I can only speak anecdotally of course, but it’s still my experience.
Britain’s treatment of refugees in particular remains a global disgrace, and I think if people here understood the extent of it, it would definitely change their perspective.
But sending NLAWs while the rest of the world was trying to appease Putin the fascist dictator has definitely won many hearts and minds here. Ukrainians wanted arms to defend their homes and their families, Britain supplied them. It’s black and white as far as many are concerned.
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc. Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Bigger and badder weapons than NATO?
Russia is fast losing its air force, based on the estimated losses so far. If that continues then bizarrely we could end up in a situation whereby the Ukrainians end up with air superiority - and who could have guessed that at the start?
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Just as a matter of interest, what are the Ukrainians doing with Russians who surrender?
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc. Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.
(1) Buy the F35 (2) Buy the Saab Grippen (3) Fuck around attempting to make the Eurofughter Typhoon into something it isn't and waste billions (4) Do nothing
My view - fwiw - is that option (2) is probably the best, quickest and most cost efficient route forward. And while it wouldn't create true fifth gen fighter, the reality is that a decent fourth gen one - that doesn't suffer from a long list of defects and low uptime - would serve Germany very well.
The GAF have two requirements:
1. Replace the Buchel wing Tornado IDS with a platform cleared for B61 carriage and release under NATO's nuclear weapon sharing program.
2. Replace the Schleswig wing Tornado ECR with a DEAD/SEAD capable platform.
Gripen can fulfill neither of these missions.
At one point last year the thinking was F/A-18E for the B61 mission and EA-18G for the ECR/SEAD mission. This actually makes quite a lot of sense as its a common platform and they get all of the USN economies of scale.
Now the situation has developed since AKK left office and the favoured plan appears to be F-35A for Buchel and a new ECR version of Typhoon which only exists in PowerPoint form for Schleswig. They also have the 'Quadriga' Typhoon program going on which replaces 38 x Tranche 1 jets with the latest spec. in a job creation scheme that, much like Gripen, satisfies neither Requirement 1 nor Requirement 2.
Do these modern combat sims bear any relation to the real world ? The most interesting thing to me was the apparent overwhelming importance of the number of longer range missiles carried.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Wheest you silly old fool.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:
How do you imagine that when we are forbidden a vote by our much larger neighbour, forbidden to join EU. Who is the deluded fool. You may not like to admit it but it is reality, we do not have free votes in Scotland. Apart from the violence it is no different. Also as you see it only needs Tories like Hyfud to get nearer power and even that could change.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues? I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?
That's a cable for power from a proposed very large scale solar development. Which is a great idea, but not immediately relevant.
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc. Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.
Except that Scotland voted to stay in the cellar. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps.
Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues? I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?
That's a cable for power from a proposed very large scale solar development. Which is a great idea, but not immediately relevant.
Obliged. Old men's memories are not always reliable!
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Wheest you silly old fool.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:
Obviously no comparison to the KGB, but there are very slight hints that the police in Scotland are starting to monitor social media in ways that aren't particularly wholesome.
I was thinking of a scheme the EU could run. Russian gas would be sanctioned with a monopoly organisation purchasing restricted amounts at prices set to those of 2019, ie one third of now. They would sell on the gas at a slight premium to world prices to encourage consumers to find other sources. The difference between the buying and selling price goes to a fund for humanitarian aid and reconstruction of Ukraine.
The advantages of such a scheme are:
1. Sufficient gas is available in Europe 2. Russia doesn't benefit from high prices 3. A funding scheme is set up for Ukrainian reconstruction, which will be needed after this war and is a way to get Russia to pay part of this. ie this will be a permanent scheme for Russian gas after the war. 4. Russia can't undercut on pricing to sabotage investments in diversification.
Russia might not play ball of course. But it doesn't have alternative customers for this gas and it needs the euros.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues? I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?
That's a cable for power from a proposed very large scale solar development. Which is a great idea, but not immediately relevant.
Obliged. Old men's memories are not always reliable!
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc. Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.
Except that Scotland voted to stay in the cellar. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps.
Yep. But now that it wants to get out the door has been locked. The person locking the door is saying the only person responsible is the one locked in the cellar.
We aren't that far from "its puts the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again".
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Wheest you silly old fool.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:
Obviously no comparison to the KGB, but there are very slight hints that the police in Scotland are starting to monitor social media in ways that aren't particularly wholesome.
That isn't a bit of gun-jumping is it? Related to new powers the British Government is about to give the police.
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Bigger and badder weapons than NATO?
Russia is fast losing its air force, based on the estimated losses so far. If that continues then bizarrely we could end up in a situation whereby the Ukrainians end up with air superiority - and who could have guessed that at the start?
I know nothing about this stuff, but as that doesn't stop anyone else I'll give my tuppence worth. To me the big problem is artillery fired from a distance that the Ukrainians can do nothing about. If they bizarrely did get air superiority I assume that changes and they can even attack artillery in Russia.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc. Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.
Except that Scotland voted to stay in the cellar. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps.
That was a long time ago, fact is we are being denied a democratic vote. We are prisoners held by our large bully neighbour , a sanctimonious one at that who trumpets about democracy , freedom and right to choose for everyone , except SCOTLAND.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Totally agree , they got such a fright last time that they will do anything to never allow a free vote again.
Do these modern combat sims bear any relation to the real world ?
In terms of cockpit layout, procedures, etc. they are very good. I've flown the F-14B in DCS and in terms of simulating, say, an engine out drill it was better than the actual F-14 simulator (which admittedly was designed and built in the 70s).
In terms of how it compares to flying the real aircraft it's absolutely nothing like it as it can't simulate the physical or sensory aspects.
PC based helicopter sims get a bit closer if you have hydraulically damped stick, collective, etc.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Wheest you silly old fool.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:
Obviously no comparison to the KGB, but there are very slight hints that the police in Scotland are starting to monitor social media in ways that aren't particularly wholesome.
Yes if one of the elite report your tweet , they will be round to get you for hate crimes. Be interesting to see how much they have to pay Mark H for wrongful arrest etc, house raided by the 20+ strong Salmond task force and all because he used a very well know phrase known to be harmless. Lucky for him he was tried in the borders.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
It was in the Scottish Government’s prospectus “Scotland’s Future”.
In black and white.
Written down.
Not some “off the cuff” remark in a TV interview as some of the more credulous Nats like to claim.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
As often as the public vote for it.
Its called democracy.
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
Not very often - but lets be clear this vote won't be for another few years so a decade at least after the first one. Things have clearly changed significantly since the 2014 referendum creating rationale for another vote. The electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote. So it is simply anti-democratic to say no.
A new referendum bill should have a clause that there can't be a rerun within a set period and everyone be clear about that. Yes parliament has sovereignty and can overturn that law but at least this time it would be clear and agreed up front.
Better still would be everyone in the UK being given a vote on a new federal constitution which fixes the Scottish and NI self-determination issues and England's lack of representation. But there is fat chance of that so we're probably facing down Scotland and NI both leaving the Union so voted for by their respective citizens.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
As often as the public vote for it.
Its called democracy.
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
We do need to lance the boil though. Down south everyone is Brexit possessed and making silly comparisons between the EU and the UK on support for Ukraine; up here we only ever discuss the constitution rather than really important stuff like the dualling of the A9, ferries and hill paths legislation.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
It was in the Scottish Government’s prospectus “Scotland’s Future”.
In black and white.
Written down.
Not some “off the cuff” remark in a TV interview as some of the more credulous Nats like to claim.
It was not in the agreement or the referendum at all. No manner of unionist revisionism can make it real. Democracy has been denied to Scotland, whilst Westminster trumpets about freedom for all countries but Scotland.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
It was in the Scottish Government’s prospectus “Scotland’s Future”.
In black and white.
Written down.
Not some “off the cuff” remark in a TV interview as some of the more credulous Nats like to claim.
Keep chanting your mantra. Unless it was in the legislation it wasn't a legal position. And if it was in the legislation that can be changed. So what is your point? Other than being against there being monsters in your bedroom cupboard.
I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
People complaining about this post ought to realise that people in their 20s have been locked up for 2 years for a disease that hardly affects them, charged through the nose for university tuition (in some cases for little more than 2 years of glorified youtube videos and zoom calls), have watched house prices rise far faster than they could ever save for a deposit, witnessed (mostly) old people vote away their rights to live and work in Europe (if that's your thing), all while being told they're lazy, feckless and overprivileged.
Little wonder they're angry at the old order.
No, those whinging are spoilt brats on the whole (and not all that generation to be fair are whiners, some actually get on with it without complaint).
There are tuition fees now as 20 year olds today are more likely to have been to university than any generation before them, have a longer life expectancy than any generation before them, have more freedom in their private lives than any generation before them and have never had to fight a war.
The fact they might have been less likely to die from Covid than older people is also something they should be grateful for not whinging about and they have no restrictions again now.
20 year olds will also inherit more than any generation from their parents and grandparents too through those same house price rises and many also get help with deposits from their parents and grandparents as well, especially in London and the Home Counties.
As for free movement, plenty of working class 20 year olds voted Leave precisely because there was free movement of unskilled labour undercutting their wages now resolved by the points system we have. Even if middle class 20 year old Remainers find gap yahs take a bit extra paperwork
Ok, boomer.
I ain't no boomer, I am 40. However I respect my elders
Why? Age confers no moral superiority at all. Nor no need for deference. It's just not having died yet
The most secure and stable societies respect the wisdom and experience of their elders
Respecting wisdom and experience does not mean automatic acceptance of the will of those elders, or abasement to their wishes. Respect does not mean gerontocracy.
Some of the stuff people have come up with like restricting voting of people above a certain age is just wrong, but it isn't required to take a comedically extreme stance in opposition to prove your respect for elderly people. They're just people.
Nor does it mean abuse as the whinging pathetic original post originally did.
Boomers generally created the most peaceful time in the western world in human history, created more wealth in the western world for the next generation than there has been in human history and more freedom than there has been in the western world than at any time before following the changes from the 1960s on.
I say that as someone who thinks some of those freedoms went too far
And then kept it all for themselves.
Nope, hence the next generation will inherit more from them than ever before and many already get help with deposits.
If they were really keeping it for themselves they would downsize and spend the proceeds on cruises and expensive restaurants
I inherited a decent amount when my father died. I’d give it all back for 10 minutes with him. And if my mum wished to spend it all on cruises and expensive restaurants all power to her. It’s not my money.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
As often as the public vote for it.
Its called democracy.
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
Even one per parliament is too much. These things take time to organise, then time for campaigning, then time for mopping up the impacts on business, government, society etc.
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc. Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
Are you free to have a referendum? Well, you had one recently (and you voted to stay). So, clearly, you were free to have a referendum.
Are you free to have multiple referendums whenever one side of the argument wants? No, but that’s about politics rather than freedoms. Polling shows a majority opposed to a second referendum right now anyway, so I don’t see a democracy problem.
Are you free to join the EU? The EU won’t take you because you are not an independent country. You’re not an independent country because you democratically chose not to be.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
As often as the public vote for it.
Its called democracy.
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
We do need to lance the boil though. Down south everyone is Brexit possessed and making silly comparisons between the EU and the UK on support for Ukraine; up here we only ever discuss the constitution rather than really important stuff like the dualling of the A9, ferries and hill paths legislation.
And that is why I disagree with Alex Cole-Hamilton and his position on just saying No. He correctly wants to talk about actual issues and policies. But we can't because there are two large elephants in the room - the Brexit fall-out and the constitution.
So lets have another vote. No would win. Then we move on.
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc. Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.
Polling does not support your contention that a majority want to consider again. Nor is “shotgun marriage” remotely accurate for what was a long process.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
As often as the public vote for it.
Its called democracy.
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
Even one per parliament is too much. These things take time to organise, then time for campaigning, then time for mopping up the impacts on business, government, society etc.
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.
If anything Russia's invasion of Ukraine if followed by Chinese invasion of Taiwan means independence of smaller nations is less viable not more if larger neighbours want to keep them in union
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
Not very often - but lets be clear this vote won't be for another few years so a decade at least after the first one. Things have clearly changed significantly since the 2014 referendum creating rationale for another vote. The electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote. So it is simply anti-democratic to say no.
A new referendum bill should have a clause that there can't be a rerun within a set period and everyone be clear about that. Yes parliament has sovereignty and can overturn that law but at least this time it would be clear and agreed up front.
Better still would be everyone in the UK being given a vote on a new federal constitution which fixes the Scottish and NI self-determination issues and England's lack of representation. But there is fat chance of that so we're probably facing down Scotland and NI both leaving the Union so voted for by their respective citizens.
We aren't as the UK government will continue to refuse indyref2 and the Union is reserved to Westminster and Unionist parties win more votes than Nationalist in NI
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
As often as the public vote for it.
Its called democracy.
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
Even one per parliament is too much. These things take time to organise, then time for campaigning, then time for mopping up the impacts on business, government, society etc.
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.
If anything Russia's invasion of Ukraine if followed by Chinese invasion if Taiwan means independence of smaller nations is less viable not more if larger neighbours want to keep them in union
Why do you keep repeating this, as though it has any bearing on relations between England and Scotland?
You'd just love England to be the cartoonish bully of the imagination of Scottish Nationalists.
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you. If you are in NATO we probably won't. Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all round
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.
So Scotland isn't a free country?
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.
A 'once in a generation vote'.
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance. BARE FACED LIE.
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
How often would you like a referendum?
Not very often - but lets be clear this vote won't be for another few years so a decade at least after the first one. Things have clearly changed significantly since the 2014 referendum creating rationale for another vote. The electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote. So it is simply anti-democratic to say no.
A new referendum bill should have a clause that there can't be a rerun within a set period and everyone be clear about that. Yes parliament has sovereignty and can overturn that law but at least this time it would be clear and agreed up front.
Better still would be everyone in the UK being given a vote on a new federal constitution which fixes the Scottish and NI self-determination issues and England's lack of representation. But there is fat chance of that so we're probably facing down Scotland and NI both leaving the Union so voted for by their respective citizens.
The electorate have voted for the SNP (and Greens). People vote for parties and candidates for a wide variety of reasons. Independence is not those parties’ only positions. So, is it fair to say the electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote? Polling suggests a majority remain opposed to a second vote in the short term.
Independence is not the same as putting a penny on income tax or most other policies. It makes sense that there are more checks and balances on it. Are the current Edinburgh and London governments going about this the right way? No, probably not. But I’m not convinced by cries of “anti-democratic”.
Comments
1. Replace the Buchel wing Tornado IDS with a platform cleared for B61 carriage and release under NATO's nuclear weapon sharing program.
2. Replace the Schleswig wing Tornado ECR with a DEAD/SEAD capable platform.
Gripen can fulfill neither of these missions.
At one point last year the thinking was F/A-18E for the B61 mission and EA-18G for the ECR/SEAD mission. This actually makes quite a lot of sense as its a common platform and they get all of the USN economies of scale.
Now the situation has developed since AKK left office and the favoured plan appears to be F-35A for Buchel and a new ECR version of Typhoon which only exists in PowerPoint form for Schleswig. They also have the 'Quadriga' Typhoon program going on which replaces 38 x Tranche 1 jets with the latest spec. in a job creation scheme that, much like Gripen, satisfies neither Requirement 1 nor Requirement 2.
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
But this isn't really about the inconvenience of goods travel across the Irish Sea, is it? It's about the symbolism, like most of you-know-what. That doesn't mean stupid; symbols are important. But problems with symbols rarely respond well to a technical fix.
(And don't forget, the 1st Epping Foresters are willing to supply the bombs if you feel the parallel needs improving.)
Perhaps, demonstrably, we have a fear of the forrin after all...
Until the Irish Sea border is removed I merely agreed given the Republic of Ireland is the only foreign nation whose migrants to the UK can avoid our points based immigration system, yet is also not even in the Commonwealth either now or shares the Queen as head of state unlike say Australia, Canada and New Zealand who all face the same points based immigration system for migrants as everyone else except Ireland.
This is demonstrably why BigG was unwise to be ignoring all the evidence and relying on "but Patel said". Patel is a liar. Lied to the house on this very subject only yesterday. You cannot take anything said by most UK ministers as truth because of the sheer number of prima facie lies they tell.
Its a disgrace that things are like this - and that people who should know better provide liars with succour - but we are where we are.
Unlike now with you lot.
On the latest poll 51% still oppose independence
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1500397101615833090?s=20&t=EvpJST2MSYk9UllbHMof1A
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.
Incidentally, that Ukrainian/Channel story is rather wretched. Almost as if Patel's unfit for high office.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.new-f1-manager-2022-game-set-for-summer-release.2ZXn7fuS4g7qWDc5e91WEa.html
Keep out immigrants
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
1. Basic level nasty spiteful politicians
2. Dog whistle racism has been a vote winner for them in the past
3. Lying about something so obviously untrue is now a reflex. Patel lies in the Commons as easily as she breathes in the Commons. They think we are so stupid that we will believe their lies. Clearly some people are.
Once in, they asked her: "Are you German?"
Thinking that they might be about to chuck her out, she replied, "No, British."
"Ah," they said, "We charge the Germans, not the British."
These attitudes can last, even as jokes.
An acquaintance is working on it. She is being *very* tight-lipped, damn her!
On a personal level, I am still extremely critical of his policies both towards Ukraine and on the domestic sanctions push. But people here see Britain as being a more reliable ally now than the US and the EU. I can only speak anecdotally of course, but it’s still my experience.
Britain’s treatment of refugees in particular remains a global disgrace, and I think if people here understood the extent of it, it would definitely change their perspective.
But sending NLAWs while the rest of the world was trying to appease Putin the fascist dictator has definitely won many hearts and minds here. Ukrainians wanted arms to defend their homes and their families, Britain supplied them. It’s black and white as far as many are concerned.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1500927139570401283
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Praise where deserved (supply of material) criticize when we do it wrong. We are doing this wrong. We are putting people through hell at the end of a traumatic journey.
I do NOT support Scottish independence. I am standing for election representing a party opposed to independence. But I am a democrat and the expressed will of the Scottish electorate is for another vote. Saying "you can't have the thing you voted for" - what you just posted - is the polar opposite of your previous statement of "The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters."
We want it, you are stopping us. Well not you are you are in Spain, but the party you support.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:
Fact remains though that even Wellington admitted it was 'a damn close run thing'!
Russia is fast losing its air force, based on the estimated losses so far. If that continues then bizarrely we could end up in a situation whereby the Ukrainians end up with air superiority - and who could have guessed that at the start?
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
https://corporalfrisk.com/tag/jas-39-gripen-2/
Do these modern combat sims bear any relation to the real world ?
The most interesting thing to me was the apparent overwhelming importance of the number of longer range missiles carried.
Apart from the violence it is no different. Also as you see it only needs Tories like Hyfud to get nearer power and even that could change.
BARE FACED LIE.
Which is a great idea, but not immediately relevant.
I was thinking of a scheme the EU could run. Russian gas would be sanctioned with a monopoly organisation purchasing restricted amounts at prices set to those of 2019, ie one third of now. They would sell on the gas at a slight premium to world prices to encourage consumers to find other sources. The difference between the buying and selling price goes to a fund for humanitarian aid and reconstruction of Ukraine.
The advantages of such a scheme are:
1. Sufficient gas is available in Europe
2. Russia doesn't benefit from high prices
3. A funding scheme is set up for Ukrainian reconstruction, which will be needed after this war and is a way to get Russia to pay part of this. ie this will be a permanent scheme for Russian gas after the war.
4. Russia can't undercut on pricing to sabotage investments in diversification.
Russia might not play ball of course. But it doesn't have alternative customers for this gas and it needs the euros.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
We aren't that far from "its puts the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again".
Cloud cuckoo land stuff?
In terms of how it compares to flying the real aircraft it's absolutely nothing like it as it can't simulate the physical or sensory aspects.
PC based helicopter sims get a bit closer if you have hydraulically damped stick, collective, etc.
https://twitter.com/girkingirkin/status/1501100807378378755?s=21
(Building ruins only - but other tweets from author have graphic images of child bodies)
Its called democracy.
In black and white.
Written down.
Not some “off the cuff” remark in a TV interview as some of the more credulous Nats like to claim.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
A new referendum bill should have a clause that there can't be a rerun within a set period and everyone be clear about that. Yes parliament has sovereignty and can overturn that law but at least this time it would be clear and agreed up front.
Better still would be everyone in the UK being given a vote on a new federal constitution which fixes the Scottish and NI self-determination issues and England's lack of representation. But there is fat chance of that so we're probably facing down Scotland and NI both leaving the Union so voted for by their respective citizens.
Democracy has been denied to Scotland, whilst Westminster trumpets about freedom for all countries but Scotland.
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.
Are you free to have multiple referendums whenever one side of the argument wants? No, but that’s about politics rather than freedoms. Polling shows a majority opposed to a second referendum right now anyway, so I don’t see a democracy problem.
Are you free to join the EU? The EU won’t take you because you are not an independent country. You’re not an independent country because you democratically chose not to be.
So lets have another vote. No would win. Then we move on.
You'd just love England to be the cartoonish bully of the imagination of Scottish Nationalists.
Independence is not the same as putting a penny on income tax or most other policies. It makes sense that there are more checks and balances on it. Are the current Edinburgh and London governments going about this the right way? No, probably not. But I’m not convinced by cries of “anti-democratic”.