At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking and calming down) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
I have had a few patients launch similar unprovoked rants about the PM. It isn't just a media bubble thing, they all knew she was shite back in the summer. Now everyone knows.
The thing is that makes it more likely the Tories will get rid of her, probably early 2023, and claim it was a horrible mistake. Then who is elected next?
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
LOL!
Sounds like you've at least got a real rapport with this one!
I first sussed it was absolutely finished for Gordon Brown when my basic skills class of the long-term unemployed launched into an unprovoked and unanimous discussion of how awful he was. It's gone way beyond folk who normally take an interest. It's accepted wisdom now. It can be turned around a little, as Brown did. But not so much.
It's odd how quickly and utterly the public turned against her. "Cutting taxes for millionaire bankers", even if it's an inaccurate precis, cut through. And sucessful quiet competence won't cut through in the same way, even if she is capable of it.
Short of a sucessful small war (retaking the Channel Islands from a French invasion?), she's had it.
"I still expect the war to last at least another year, maybe two. Both sides still have plans and ideas to test before their expectations are likely to converge."
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking and calming down) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
I have had a few patients launch similar unprovoked rants about the PM. It isn't just a media bubble thing, they all knew she was shite back in the summer. Now everyone knows.
The thing is that makes it more likely the Tories will get rid of her, probably early 2023, and claim it was a horrible mistake. Then who is elected next?
They can't depose Truss unless they are absolutely sure the vote wont go to the membership again because if it does Braverman will run and probably win. The cannabis thing was the start of her campaign.
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking and calming down) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
I have had a few patients launch similar unprovoked rants about the PM. It isn't just a media bubble thing, they all knew she was shite back in the summer. Now everyone knows.
The thing is that makes it more likely the Tories will get rid of her, probably early 2023, and claim it was a horrible mistake. Then who is elected next?
They can't depose Truss unless they are absolutely sure the vote wont go to the membership again because if it does Braverman will run and probably win. The cannabis thing was the start of her campaign.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
Nuclear war isn't worth worrying about. If it happens we die, if it doesn't happen, everything carries on. Either way, nothing to get upset about. We cannot change it.
I am strangely sanguine about the prospect of nuclear war. There was a lot to worry about before, starting with Brexit, then going through the pandemic etc, but this is is so bad that there isn't really any point, and it is quite final if it happens. It is like worrying about getting run over by a bus or killed in a terrorist attack when going in to London.
I've been worried about Russia for a long time, but strangely this war has been quite helpful. Until February of this year Russia was impressive, if also terrifying. Now it just looks like a sad and pathetic regime - retarded even - with no redeeming features. Also, the response has made me feel a lot more positive about western democracy, even though I still get irritated by the 'woke' stuff - Putin has no answers to any of that.
https://twitter.com/OCCRP/status/1564575528497156098 BREAKING: Customs officers have raided a network of German companies suspected of selling precursors that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons to a Russian firm contracted by the FSB. <=i>
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Well, it would at least be easier. Given she can hardly talk about policing, sound tax, ferries, education...
Their fellow insular nationalists, by contrast, have nothing at all to say.
A couple of thoughts on the incoming fiscal fking & where Truss/Kwarteng go from here;
1. Could Truss ditch the energy price guarantee? Or shorten the duration considerably? Would be ideologically consistent with Trussonomics & save ££££.
2. Her disastrous polling actually opens up an intriguing opportunity for the tories to jettison their client vote. Ditch the pensioners. Throw them to the wolves. A lifetime cap on NHS care costs. Ditch the triple lock. No pensions bail outs. Cheer on falling house prices. Fk it, go hell for leather for the next 2 years. A manifesto to deliver a landslide in 2034.
A Tory rebirth.
I don’t think either are likely, but perhaps this is the time to think outside the box.
Except your option 2 is pretty much exactly the theme, if not detail, I have said Labour should follow.
Another military/politics professor. Basically he thinks nukes are really quite likely
And he wrote this before the Kerch Bridge
Interestingly, he agrees with PB hawks. We have to confront Putin even if it means the end of the world
"As I said when the war began, this is the defining moment for the 21st century, and we cannot afford to submit to Putin’s threats or even actual use of nukes. What’s the point of having the most formidable military in the world if it fails to defend our way of life?"
Understand that at Spad School last week all government special advisers were recommended by Mark Fullbrook to read Ross Brawn’s book ‘Total Competition - Lessons in Strategy from Formula One’. Books weren’t handed out but Mark said he has a copy paid for himself if anyone wants https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1579563857743613953
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
Understand that at Spad School last week all government special advisers were recommended by Mark Fullbrook to read Ross Brawn’s book ‘Total Competition - Lessons in Strategy from Formula One’. Books weren’t handed out but Mark said he has a copy paid for himself if anyone wants https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1579563857743613953
Yes, but the government learned all their best lessons from the Ferrari strategists.
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
They published "I wanked myself into hospital". They'll publish anything.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
Nuclear war isn't worth worrying about. If it happens we die, if it doesn't happen, everything carries on. Either way, nothing to get upset about. We cannot change it.
I don't think Edinburgh will get nuked but we are downwind of Faslane. That gives me a few weeks, at least?
Instantaneous death or extremely long, slow, painful death?
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
They published "I wanked myself into hospital". They'll publish anything.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
SC will say no. They might even hit Nicola with a fine for being so cheeky bringing this to them.
As I posted over the weekend, the next Indy ref could prove crucial for SNP. What might have swung such support around SNP after the last one was the thinking and the feeling the last Indy Ref vote was stolen, stolen by lies about the SNPs plan, by late in the day lies about a promised grand influx of power instead of full independence to split off those with doubts, stolen by lies from an unholy alliance of Con and Lab and Lib concocting this steal together.
But if the next one is lost - which I’m not saying it’s certain to be - but if it is, it can be lost this time more clearly on basis of SNP and their plans for independence, and promises of financial security and economic growth when independent just not convincing the electorate to take the plunge - which was certainly big element in last one wasn’t it? The whole psychology around that type of loss might be very different the SNP could take the hit for the independence referendum failing - a realisation in voters minds independence rejected again, this time decisively, so if it ever happens it’s not going to happen for a generation or more, might lead to drop in SNP support in the short to medium term, allowing other parties to seize back some ground.
I note SNP are imminently about to publish their economic plan for independent Scotland. Good idea, prepare ground work on the economic and monetary change years in advance undermines your opponents lying about your intentions. Should be an interesting document for PB to discuss. Does it have a name?
Not sure if this has been posted yet (video on link).
Crimea Railway Bridge damage: the fire burned with 1000+ degrees Celsius and melted the rails. That rail isn't gonna be in use for a week or two... and I doubt the bridge can hold the weight of a train transporting tanks. https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1579545243183374337
The steel rail has deformed plastically under the weight of the train when hot. You have to assume the same could have happened to the entire structure.
Also - what happened to the ballast?
I really really wouldn't fancy taking a train with anything heavy on it over that.
What is the deck of that bridge actually made of?
If it's concrete, I would think twice before taking a pushbike over it.
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking and calming down) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
I have had a few patients launch similar unprovoked rants about the PM. It isn't just a media bubble thing, they all knew she was shite back in the summer. Now everyone knows.
The thing is that makes it more likely the Tories will get rid of her, probably early 2023, and claim it was a horrible mistake. Then who is elected next?
They can't depose Truss unless they are absolutely sure the vote wont go to the membership again because if it does Braverman will run and probably win. The cannabis thing was the start of her campaign.
The country cannot be held hostage by 80,000 eccentric Tory members. In fact the party might never be forgiven.
Not sure if this has been posted yet (video on link).
Crimea Railway Bridge damage: the fire burned with 1000+ degrees Celsius and melted the rails. That rail isn't gonna be in use for a week or two... and I doubt the bridge can hold the weight of a train transporting tanks. https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1579545243183374337
The steel rail has deformed plastically under the weight of the train when hot. You have to assume the same could have happened to the entire structure.
Also - what happened to the ballast?
I really really wouldn't fancy taking a train with anything heavy on it over that.
What is the deck of that bridge actually made of?
If it's concrete, I would think twice before taking a pushbike over it.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
The Spectator are going to be a long time in the wilderness when this government falls.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
SC will say no. They might even hit Nicola with a fine for being so cheeky bringing this to them.
As I posted over the weekend, the next Indy ref could prove crucial for SNP. What might have swung such support around SNP after the last one was the thinking and the feeling the last Indy Ref vote was stolen, stolen by lies about the SNPs plan, by late in the day lies about a promised grand influx of power instead of full independence to split off those with doubts, stolen by lies from an unholy alliance of Con and Lab and Lib concocting this steal together.
But if the next one is lost - which I’m not saying it’s certain to be - but if it is, it can be lost this time more clearly on basis of SNP and their plans for independence, and promises of financial security and economic growth when independent just not convincing the electorate to take the plunge - which was certainly big element in last one wasn’t it? The whole psychology around that type of loss might be very different the SNP could take the hit for the independence referendum failing - a realisation in voters minds independence rejected again, this time decisively, so if it ever happens it’s not going to happen for a generation or more, might lead to drop in SNP support in the short to medium term, allowing other parties to seize back some ground.
I note SNP are imminently about to publish their economic plan for independent Scotland. Good idea, prepare ground work on the economic and monetary change years in advance undermines your opponents lying about your intentions. Should be an interesting document for PB to discuss. Does it have a name?
For me the bigge question is currency. They are insisting the plan is a Scottish Pound. Fine - three banks already print those and coins can be minted. But the elephant in the room remains the central bank. Supposedly they will instigate work on a Scottish Central Bank as soon as the vote is in favour of independence. But backed by what...?
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
They published "I wanked myself into hospital". They'll publish anything.
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking and calming down) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
Has Critical Truss Theory replaced Critical Race Theory with you woke teachers? Great stuff, though.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
So if a Scottish council decided to hold a non-binding referendum on whether they were to take orders from Edinburgh or Westminster, would that be somehow OK?
The average mortgage interest rate on a two-year fixed term mortgage is now 6.3%, according to data compiled by financial information company Moneyfacts https://trib.al/DTUO8Z4
If you can refrain from the usual Viking greeting of cranial cleaving for a moment, I have a question. Will the ref electorate be different next time? Will more of the Scottish diaspora be included in it?
The average mortgage interest rate on a two-year fixed term mortgage is now 6.3%, according to data compiled by financial information company Moneyfacts https://trib.al/DTUO8Z4
More than three times what I got for a five year fix just nine months ago.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
SC will say no. They might even hit Nicola with a fine for being so cheeky bringing this to them.
As I posted over the weekend, the next Indy ref could prove crucial for SNP. What might have swung such support around SNP after the last one was the thinking and the feeling the last Indy Ref vote was stolen, stolen by lies about the SNPs plan, by late in the day lies about a promised grand influx of power instead of full independence to split off those with doubts, stolen by lies from an unholy alliance of Con and Lab and Lib concocting this steal together.
But if the next one is lost - which I’m not saying it’s certain to be - but if it is, it can be lost this time more clearly on basis of SNP and their plans for independence, and promises of financial security and economic growth when independent just not convincing the electorate to take the plunge - which was certainly big element in last one wasn’t it? The whole psychology around that type of loss might be very different the SNP could take the hit for the independence referendum failing - a realisation in voters minds independence rejected again, this time decisively, so if it ever happens it’s not going to happen for a generation or more, might lead to drop in SNP support in the short to medium term, allowing other parties to seize back some ground.
I note SNP are imminently about to publish their economic plan for independent Scotland. Good idea, prepare ground work on the economic and monetary change years in advance undermines your opponents lying about your intentions. Should be an interesting document for PB to discuss. Does it have a name?
For me the bigge question is currency. They are insisting the plan is a Scottish Pound. Fine - three banks already print those and coins can be minted. But the elephant in the room remains the central bank. Supposedly they will instigate work on a Scottish Central Bank as soon as the vote is in favour of independence. But backed by what...?
I understood plan was keeping the British pound, that is underwritten by UK wealth and investments and credibility on the international markets…
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
So if a Scottish council decided to hold a non-binding referendum on whether they were to take orders from Edinburgh or Westminster, would that be somehow OK?
Yes.
If Liverpool City Council decided to hold a non-binding referendum on whether to become an independent People's Republic of Liverpool, then that should be OK.
Actually doing anything about it, that's a different matter. But a non-binding vote? Yes, absolutely OK in my eyes.
If you can refrain from the usual Viking greeting of cranial cleaving for a moment, I have a question. Will the ref electorate be different next time? Will more of the Scottish diaspora be included in it?
No. Impossible to define and to certify. It will have to be residents in Scotland. There is no other valid legal definition of a 'Scot' permitted by the UK. Other than birth as per Register Houes in Edinburgh, which is incomplete and which is useless as it includes diasporaics who cannot be listed or certified.
It's not as if there is a Republic/Kingdom of Scotland passport. Which is rather the whole point.
The average mortgage interest rate on a two-year fixed term mortgage is now 6.3%, according to data compiled by financial information company Moneyfacts https://trib.al/DTUO8Z4
More than three times what I got for a five year fix just nine months ago.
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
The Spectator are going to be a long time in the wilderness when this government falls.
Interesting theory. Also complete bullshit. The Spectator has been consistently and remarkably successful for 30 years because it is superbly edited and attracts the best writers
The average mortgage interest rate on a two-year fixed term mortgage is now 6.3%, according to data compiled by financial information company Moneyfacts https://trib.al/DTUO8Z4
More than three times what I got for a five year fix just nine months ago.
That's a very steep rise.
..and guess who voters will blame.
Well, I'm guessing it will be Truss.
Which seems fair enough to me given it's largely her fault.
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
LOL!
Sounds like you've at least got a real rapport with this one!
I first sussed it was absolutely finished for Gordon Brown when my basic skills class of the long-term unemployed launched into an unprovoked and unanimous discussion of how awful he was. It's gone way beyond folk who normally take an interest. It's accepted wisdom now. It can be turned around a little, as Brown did. But not so much.
It's odd how quickly and utterly the public turned against her. "Cutting taxes for millionaire bankers", even if it's an inaccurate precis, cut through. And sucessful quiet competence won't cut through in the same way, even if she is capable of it.
Short of a sucessful small war (retaking the Channel Islands from a French invasion?), she's had it.
Trouble is Truss would manage to make that one go nuclear whilst Putin was still eating breakfast.
The Spectator Sales of The Spectator surge 16 per cent to (another) all-time high 17 February 2022, 1:29pm
"The UK magazine industry releases figures today and we're delighted to announce that The Spectator sold a weekly average of 106,905 copies last year, up 16 per cent on 2020 and — yet again — our best year ever. The Spectator has now almost doubled our sales over a decade where sales of consumer magazines fell by two-thirds."
The Spectator now outsells the Guardian, as the editor says. Which is really quite astonishing. When I were a lad the Speccie sold about 20,000 and the Guardian about 400,000. There was no question which was more important
Now? Close call
This is also encouraging because the Spectator is properly intellectual, with remarkable and often beautiful articles
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
So if a Scottish council decided to hold a non-binding referendum on whether they were to take orders from Edinburgh or Westminster, would that be somehow OK?
Yes.
If Liverpool City Council decided to hold a non-binding referendum on whether to become an independent People's Republic of Liverpool, then that should be OK.
Actually doing anything about it, that's a different matter. But a non-binding vote? Yes, absolutely OK in my eyes.
There is, actually, an interesting example. The Strathclyde Region referendum on who should own water in Scotland. Absolutely not binding and even more absolutely not accepted by the Tory satrapy in charge in Scotland. But its result meant that water was never privatised in Scotland (despite what London Labour sometimes think.
Anecdote from today. 12 yo storms in: I hate Miss X. She's a horrible person. TA: Miss X isn't that bad. You enjoyed her lessons last week. 12 yo (thinking) : I suppose she isn't as bad as that stupid, ugly witch that everyone hates. TA (ready to chastise for slagging off a teacher so) : And who's that then? 12 yo: The leader of the country. TA (relieved): Ah. You mean Liz Truss. No. I suppose not. 12 yo: Yes. Nowhere near as bad as her.
LOL!
Sounds like you've at least got a real rapport with this one!
I first sussed it was absolutely finished for Gordon Brown when my basic skills class of the long-term unemployed launched into an unprovoked and unanimous discussion of how awful he was. It's gone way beyond folk who normally take an interest. It's accepted wisdom now. It can be turned around a little, as Brown did. But not so much.
It's odd how quickly and utterly the public turned against her. "Cutting taxes for millionaire bankers", even if it's an inaccurate precis, cut through. And sucessful quiet competence won't cut through in the same way, even if she is capable of it.
Short of a sucessful small war (retaking the Channel Islands from a French invasion?), she's had it.
Trouble is Truss would manage to make that one go nuclear whilst Putin was still eating breakfast.
Get him while he's distracted, seems logical, hope its a big breakfast.
If you can refrain from the usual Viking greeting of cranial cleaving for a moment, I have a question. Will the ref electorate be different next time? Will more of the Scottish diaspora be included in it?
No. Impossible to define and to certify. It will have to be residents in Scotland. There is no other valid legal definition of a 'Scot' permitted by the UK. Other than birth as per Register Houes in Edinburgh, which is incomplete and which is useless as it includes diasporaics who cannot be listed or certified.
It's not as if there is a Republic/Kingdom of Scotland passport. Which is rather the whole point.
I’m not sure I agree. In UK elections there are expat vote from around the world, Spain, France, Tim Buck too, wherever he is living at mo, so consider the amount of 100% Scottish people living for work mainly in England alone - the reason why it’s important is how does the result feel complete and assured without the diaspora vote? A state, what makes a people, exists in more than mere current borders doesn’t it? So a vote like this has to include the Scottish people, wherever they are living and working at current.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
If you can refrain from the usual Viking greeting of cranial cleaving for a moment, I have a question. Will the ref electorate be different next time? Will more of the Scottish diaspora be included in it?
No. Impossible to define and to certify. It will have to be residents in Scotland. There is no other valid legal definition of a 'Scot' permitted by the UK. Other than birth as per Register Houes in Edinburgh, which is incomplete and which is useless as it includes diasporaics who cannot be listed or certified.
It's not as if there is a Republic/Kingdom of Scotland passport. Which is rather the whole point.
I’m not sure I agree. In UK elections there are expat vote from around the world, Spain, France, Tim Buck too, wherever he is living at mo, so consider the amount of 100% Scottish people living for work mainly in England alone - the reason why it’s important is how does the result feel complete and assured without the diaspora vote? A state, what makes a people, exists in more than mere current borders doesn’t it? So a vote like this has to include the Scottish people, wherever they are living and working at current.
The expat vote is strictly time limited. Not like the French one. And IIRC it does not apply for the electorate for a referendum but only for that for the GE. There was no expat vote in 2014.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
If you can refrain from the usual Viking greeting of cranial cleaving for a moment, I have a question. Will the ref electorate be different next time? Will more of the Scottish diaspora be included in it?
No. Impossible to define and to certify. It will have to be residents in Scotland. There is no other valid legal definition of a 'Scot' permitted by the UK. Other than birth as per Register Houes in Edinburgh, which is incomplete and which is useless as it includes diasporaics who cannot be listed or certified.
It's not as if there is a Republic/Kingdom of Scotland passport. Which is rather the whole point.
I’m not sure I agree. In UK elections there are expat vote from around the world, Spain, France, Tim Buck too, wherever he is living at mo, so consider the amount of 100% Scottish people living for work mainly in England alone - the reason why it’s important is how does the result feel complete and assured without the diaspora vote? A state, what makes a people, exists in more than mere current borders doesn’t it? So a vote like this has to include the Scottish people, wherever they are living and working at current.
The expat vote is strictly time limited. Not like the French one. And IIRC it does not apply for the electorate for a referendum but only for that for the GE. There was no expat vote in 2014.
Then create a Scottish passport in time for the ref?
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
Ah, that reminds me, time to look at some diesel movies.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
Not a delaying tactic. It is something that genuinely has not been tested in law before.
If you can refrain from the usual Viking greeting of cranial cleaving for a moment, I have a question. Will the ref electorate be different next time? Will more of the Scottish diaspora be included in it?
No. Impossible to define and to certify. It will have to be residents in Scotland. There is no other valid legal definition of a 'Scot' permitted by the UK. Other than birth as per Register Houes in Edinburgh, which is incomplete and which is useless as it includes diasporaics who cannot be listed or certified.
It's not as if there is a Republic/Kingdom of Scotland passport. Which is rather the whole point.
I’m not sure I agree. In UK elections there are expat vote from around the world, Spain, France, Tim Buck too, wherever he is living at mo, so consider the amount of 100% Scottish people living for work mainly in England alone - the reason why it’s important is how does the result feel complete and assured without the diaspora vote? A state, what makes a people, exists in more than mere current borders doesn’t it? So a vote like this has to include the Scottish people, wherever they are living and working at current.
The expat vote is strictly time limited. Not like the French one. And IIRC it does not apply for the electorate for a referendum but only for that for the GE. There was no expat vote in 2014.
Then create a Scottish passport in time for the ref?
The average mortgage interest rate on a two-year fixed term mortgage is now 6.3%, according to data compiled by financial information company Moneyfacts https://trib.al/DTUO8Z4
More than three times what I got for a five year fix just nine months ago.
That's a very steep rise.
Something of interest to a relative of mine is whether all this affects equity release. While most people use ER to draw capital from a home that they own, it can also be used to buy a proprty - typically a 70-year-old might get 40% of the value of a house paid from ER. The loan and accumulating interest (typically 1-2% more than current mortgage rates) never needs to be repaid until the resident(s) die or go into care. My relative doesn't have anyone who she wants to leave money to so doesn't much care about the interest.
Clearly the (unpaid) interest will accumulate faster. But will that (other things being equal) affect her chance of getting the loan? I don't think it will, and for those not seeking to pass on an asset to the next generation, that may be a good solution.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
The future of the Union may be reserved, but this proposed law doesn't change the future of the Union one iota, so ought to not be reserved.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
There is no list of devolved matters is there? I thought there's a list of reserved matters, but this isn't in it, and anything that isn't on the list isn't reserved.
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
The Spectator Sales of The Spectator surge 16 per cent to (another) all-time high 17 February 2022, 1:29pm
"The UK magazine industry releases figures today and we're delighted to announce that The Spectator sold a weekly average of 106,905 copies last year, up 16 per cent on 2020 and — yet again — our best year ever. The Spectator has now almost doubled our sales over a decade where sales of consumer magazines fell by two-thirds."
The Spectator now outsells the Guardian, as the editor says. Which is really quite astonishing. When I were a lad the Speccie sold about 20,000 and the Guardian about 400,000. There was no question which was more important
Now? Close call
This is also encouraging because the Spectator is properly intellectual, with remarkable and often beautiful articles
Not sure you can compare the circulation of a weekly magazine with a daily newspaper. Anyway, Private Eye (yes I know, fortnightly) gets about double The Spectator.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
There is no list of devolved matters is there? I thought there's a list of reserved matters, but this isn't in it, and anything that isn't on the list isn't reserved.
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
The future of the Union IS on the reserved matters and that should include any referendum on that topic
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
The Spectator are going to be a long time in the wilderness when this government falls.
Interesting theory. Also complete bullshit. The Spectator has been consistently and remarkably successful for 30 years because it is superbly edited and attracts the best writers
plot that chart against the population of England....
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
Nuclear war isn't worth worrying about. If it happens we die, if it doesn't happen, everything carries on. Either way, nothing to get upset about. We cannot change it.
I don't think Edinburgh will get nuked but we are downwind of Faslane. That gives me a few weeks, at least?
Instantaneous death or extremely long, slow, painful death?
I know which I’d prefer.
You're on PB, so you've basically committed to the latter already.
If you can refrain from the usual Viking greeting of cranial cleaving for a moment, I have a question. Will the ref electorate be different next time? Will more of the Scottish diaspora be included in it?
No. Impossible to define and to certify. It will have to be residents in Scotland. There is no other valid legal definition of a 'Scot' permitted by the UK. Other than birth as per Register Houes in Edinburgh, which is incomplete and which is useless as it includes diasporaics who cannot be listed or certified.
It's not as if there is a Republic/Kingdom of Scotland passport. Which is rather the whole point.
I’m not sure I agree. In UK elections there are expat vote from around the world, Spain, France, Tim Buck too, wherever he is living at mo, so consider the amount of 100% Scottish people living for work mainly in England alone - the reason why it’s important is how does the result feel complete and assured without the diaspora vote? A state, what makes a people, exists in more than mere current borders doesn’t it? So a vote like this has to include the Scottish people, wherever they are living and working at current.
The expat vote is strictly time limited. Not like the French one. And IIRC it does not apply for the electorate for a referendum but only for that for the GE. There was no expat vote in 2014.
Then create a Scottish passport in time for the ref?
The irony is, in line with the national colour of Scotland it would have to be blue...
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
There is no list of devolved matters is there? I thought there's a list of reserved matters, but this isn't in it, and anything that isn't on the list isn't reserved.
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
The future of the Union IS on the reserved matters and that should include any referendum on that topic
It should, but nobody has got rich betting on the Supreme Court doing the obvious and sensible thing rather than whatever will annoy their political opponents.
Blair was very stupid when he gave it that name. Part of his fatal reference for all things Yankee.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
Nuclear war isn't worth worrying about. If it happens we die, if it doesn't happen, everything carries on. Either way, nothing to get upset about. We cannot change it.
I don't think Edinburgh will get nuked but we are downwind of Faslane. That gives me a few weeks, at least?
Instantaneous death or extremely long, slow, painful death?
I know which I’d prefer.
You're on PB, so you've basically committed to the latter already.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
There is no list of devolved matters is there? I thought there's a list of reserved matters, but this isn't in it, and anything that isn't on the list isn't reserved.
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
The future of the Union IS on the reserved matters and that should include any referendum on that topic
Why should it?
Anything that changes the Union should be reserved. Simply holding a referendum doesn't change the Union, so shouldn't be.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
Nuclear war isn't worth worrying about. If it happens we die, if it doesn't happen, everything carries on. Either way, nothing to get upset about. We cannot change it.
I don't think Edinburgh will get nuked but we are downwind of Faslane. That gives me a few weeks, at least?
Instantaneous death or extremely long, slow, painful death?
I know which I’d prefer.
You're on PB, so you've basically committed to the latter already.
All of us are committed to a long, slow, inevitable and generally painful death.
The next few days in Ukraine will be revealing. Does Russia have enough munitions to continue their indiscriminate attacks? It has been relatively quiet in on the frontlines in the last few days, does it remain so?
My gut feel for the first is that they don't enough many missiles left. They seemed to have cobbled together whatever they could find to launch these attacks. Russia has 55 Tu-95 bombers yet apparently only 2 of them were in the air launching cruise missiles.
On the frontlines I think it may take a little longer for the Ukrainians to pause for breath before the next push. I don't think many supplies will be making it over the Kerch bridge for a while putting the Kherson front at greater risk for the Russians. They can't wait too long though as from some videos I've seen the mud is starting.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
The referendum is on the topic of the Union, a reserved power. So by definition is outside the powers of Holyrood unlike say a referendum on the NHS or Justice in Scotland.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
Nuclear war isn't worth worrying about. If it happens we die, if it doesn't happen, everything carries on. Either way, nothing to get upset about. We cannot change it.
I don't think Edinburgh will get nuked but we are downwind of Faslane. That gives me a few weeks, at least?
Instantaneous death or extremely long, slow, painful death?
I know which I’d prefer.
You're on PB, so you've basically committed to the latter already.
You might have warned us.
He’s wrong, for once. PB grave yard of so many of Putin’s bots - some still in therapy being reconditioned. Kremlin have a special nuke surprise just for us.
The Spectator Sales of The Spectator surge 16 per cent to (another) all-time high 17 February 2022, 1:29pm
"The UK magazine industry releases figures today and we're delighted to announce that The Spectator sold a weekly average of 106,905 copies last year, up 16 per cent on 2020 and — yet again — our best year ever. The Spectator has now almost doubled our sales over a decade where sales of consumer magazines fell by two-thirds."
The Spectator now outsells the Guardian, as the editor says. Which is really quite astonishing. When I were a lad the Speccie sold about 20,000 and the Guardian about 400,000. There was no question which was more important
Now? Close call
This is also encouraging because the Spectator is properly intellectual, with remarkable and often beautiful articles
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
There is no list of devolved matters is there? I thought there's a list of reserved matters, but this isn't in it, and anything that isn't on the list isn't reserved.
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
The future of the Union IS on the reserved matters and that should include any referendum on that topic
It should, but nobody has got rich betting on the Supreme Court doing the obvious and sensible thing rather than whatever will annoy their political opponents.
Blair was very stupid when he gave it that name. Part of his fatal reference for all things Yankee.
If the SC starts to make political rather than just legal judgements, that is the day the government of the day makes party political appointments for each new judge, not just appointments on legal expertise
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
The referendum is on the topic of the Union, a reserved power. So by definition is outside the powers of Holyrood unlike say a referendum on the NHS or Justice in Scotland.
On your logic we ought to ban the Tory Party because it might do something illegal like proroguing Parliament.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
The referendum is on the topic of the Union, a reserved power. So by definition is outside the powers of Holyrood unlike say a referendum on the NHS or Justice in Scotland.
The question would be "Should Scotland be an independent country?".
Venstre is the Liberals - centre-right in Denmark.
Sweden: not yet - the centre-right are still haggling. Maybe this week.
I'm on holiday in Copenhagen next week, looking forward to the massed banks of posters on every lamp post. I used as a child to think that the number of posters was an indication of how it was going, and got my dad to drive me round counting them. Sadly not - everyone has much the same number.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
There is no list of devolved matters is there? I thought there's a list of reserved matters, but this isn't in it, and anything that isn't on the list isn't reserved.
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
The future of the Union IS on the reserved matters and that should include any referendum on that topic
It should, but nobody has got rich betting on the Supreme Court doing the obvious and sensible thing rather than whatever will annoy their political opponents.
Blair was very stupid when he gave it that name. Part of his fatal reference for all things Yankee.
If the SC starts to make political rather than just legal judgements, that is the day the government of the day makes party political appointments for each new judge, not just appointments on legal expertise
It would be making a political judgement if it predicts that the Scottish Government would unilaterally (and successfully) declare independence in the event of a Yes vote in a merely advisory referendum
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
The referendum is on the topic of the Union, a reserved power. So by definition is outside the powers of Holyrood unlike say a referendum on the NHS or Justice in Scotland.
The question would be "Should Scotland be an independent country?".
No mention of the Union at all. Checkmate.
Being an independent country by definition means leaving the Union, bad luck
The next few days in Ukraine will be revealing. Does Russia have enough munitions to continue their indiscriminate attacks? It has been relatively quiet in on the frontlines in the last few days, does it remain so?
My gut feel for the first is that they don't enough many missiles left. They seemed to have cobbled together whatever they could find to launch these attacks. Russia has 55 Tu-95 bombers yet apparently only 2 of them were in the air launching cruise missiles.
On the frontlines I think it may take a little longer for the Ukrainians to pause for breath before the next push. I don't think many supplies will be making it over the Kerch bridge for a while putting the Kherson front at greater risk for the Russians. They can't wait too long though as from some videos I've seen the mud is starting.
Are Russia's attacks indiscriminate? It seems that they are targeting power stations and the like.
The Spectator Sales of The Spectator surge 16 per cent to (another) all-time high 17 February 2022, 1:29pm
"The UK magazine industry releases figures today and we're delighted to announce that The Spectator sold a weekly average of 106,905 copies last year, up 16 per cent on 2020 and — yet again — our best year ever. The Spectator has now almost doubled our sales over a decade where sales of consumer magazines fell by two-thirds."
The Spectator now outsells the Guardian, as the editor says. Which is really quite astonishing. When I were a lad the Speccie sold about 20,000 and the Guardian about 400,000. There was no question which was more important
Now? Close call
This is also encouraging because the Spectator is properly intellectual, with remarkable and often beautiful articles
Not sure you can compare the circulation of a weekly magazine with a daily newspaper. Anyway, Private Eye (yes I know, fortnightly) gets about double The Spectator.
The Eye also makes it much easier to tell what content from their organ should be taken seriously and what is just there for the LOLs.
The Spectator has published some excellent jokes in recent years, but I fear that some people haven't realised that they were just satirical tomfoolery.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
The referendum is on the topic of the Union, a reserved power. So by definition is outside the powers of Holyrood unlike say a referendum on the NHS or Justice in Scotland.
On your logic we ought to ban the Tory Party because it might do something illegal like proroguing Parliament.
Crown in the Westminster Parliament is sovereign, not Holyrood.
There was no statute passed by the Crown and Westminster against proroguing Parliament, although that has now been ruled against by the SC. There is statute passed by Crown and Westminster against any actions on the Union by Holyrood without Westminster consent
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
The referendum is on the topic of the Union, a reserved power. So by definition is outside the powers of Holyrood unlike say a referendum on the NHS or Justice in Scotland.
On your logic we ought to ban the Tory Party because it might do something illegal like proroguing Parliament.
Crown in the Westminster Parliament is sovereign, not Holyrood.
There was no statute passed by the Crown and Westminster against proroguing Parliament, although that has now been ruled against by the SC. There is statute passed by Crown and Westminster against any actions on the Union by Holyrood without Westminster consent
You're mistaken. I said we ought, not we should have. Different verb tenses. I is most certainly not permissible to prorogue Parliament in the circs in question. So it is just as logical to ban the Tory Party as a threat to the state and the constitution as it is to ...
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
They published "I wanked myself into hospital". They'll publish anything.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
The Scotland Act 1998 makes clear the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster so even holding a referendum on it should be outside of Holyrood's powers.
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's quite weird how you don't get this point. The referendum would not affect the Union at all, given it wouldn't be legally binding. I think the AV referendum was the only one where the government was obliged to implement the result?
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
The referendum is on the topic of the Union, a reserved power. So by definition is outside the powers of Holyrood unlike say a referendum on the NHS or Justice in Scotland.
On your logic we ought to ban the Tory Party because it might do something illegal like proroguing Parliament.
Crown in the Westminster Parliament is sovereign, not Holyrood.
There was no statute passed by the Crown and Westminster against proroguing Parliament, although that has now been ruled against by the SC. There is statute passed by Crown and Westminster against any actions on the Union by Holyrood without Westminster consent
You're mistaken. I said we ought, not we should have. Different verb tenses. I is most certainly not permissible to prorogue Parliament in the circs in question. So it is just as logical to ban the Tory Party as a threat to the state and the constitution as it is to ...
Even on that argument that would only have applied if Johnson tried to again prorogue Parliament after the SC judgement, which he didn't.
If Sturgeon tried to hold an illegal referendum or declare UDI after a SC judgement confirming the Union and the power to grant a referendum on it was reserved to Westminster then she would be in contempt of court and could be arrested as Catalan nationalist leaders were liable for arrest after defying the Spanish SC
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
At least the rest of the world is calm, as Britain sails over the edge of the falls
"Deadly airstrikes are just 'first episode' of response to Crimea attack, says Medvedev
"Russia's retaliatory mass strikes across Ukraine were only the "first episode" of Moscow's planned response to the attack on the bridge to Crimea, said former President Dmitry Medvedev, claiming it had become necessary for Russia to 'dismantle' Ukraine."
"Vladimir Putin and the Belarusian president have agreed to form a joint group of troops on the Ukrainian border, amid fears of a new ground invasion of Kyiv"
You know it’s all going to pot when you have to rely on Lukaschenko.
I'm now thinking Putin's missiles might work
He's not doing it as a gesture, he is going after critical Ukrainian infrastructure. It is reported tonight that Kharkiv has no water supply, and not much power
How long can cities endure that? Not long. Ukraine will surrender
Therefore the crucial test is Does he have more drones and missiles to bring this off? Possibly
Add in a new assault from the north, with Belarus, attempting to take Kyiv and I can see Putin actually winning this, over the winter. I do not say this happily
Hang on, haven’t you been saying that Putin was cornered and was going to annihilate us all with nuclear fire on his way down??
Putin has potentially changed the game. I thought only WMD could do that, but this might work
A brutal assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, leaving entire cities without water, food, power, heating, through a Ukrainian winter? It is terrifying and evil but it could work IF Putin has enough missiles/drones to finish the job
My Peace Plan looks an awful lot more enticing right now
I don't really see how - if the contention is he has taken out critical infrastructure, he's already played that card. He cannot take it back. So he cannot say 'Let's ceasefire or I take out your critical infrastructure'.
Extrapolate
If he can permanently deprive entire cities of water, power, heat, even food, then what choice do they have but surrender? In a Ukrainian winter? Think of it a medieval siege, but with missiles
Of course we don't know if he can do this. He will need tons of ordnance. And the Ukes might be brilliant at repair. And his army is still shit
But yes I can see how an unbridled assault on advanced nation infrastructure could win a war. It would be evil and imhumane, but this is Putin
A bit of perspective is needed.
A couple of hours ago, the Ukrainians were reporting 11 dead and 89 injured from today's attacks. No doubt the numbers will grow a bit. Maybe 25, possibly even a few more than that, but surely the total is clearly going to be far short of 100.
Yet the scenario you are painting is more like what happened to Japan in 1945. Then, on 9-10 March, somewhere in the region of 100,000 died in Tokyo in a firestorm caused by conventional bombing.
There's absolutely no comparison.
Because Putin went after infrastructure, not people. It wasn't Dresden or Coventry
Is that too hard to understand?
He was also quite successful. As of this moment, several parts of Kyiv and several Ukrainian cities have no power
Free Army of Civilians in Ukraine*️⃣ @FreeCiviliansUA · 33m 🔴Regions with severe power disruptions in #Ukraine at 20-00 local time: Lviv Ternopil Rivne Khmelnyitsky Zhytomyr Kyiv/Kyiv Obl. Cherkasy Chernihiv Sumy Poltava Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk (sp. Kryvyi Rih) http://donorbox.org/freearmyukraine
This only works for Putin if he can keep it up. Imagine Kyiv enduring a Ukrainian winter with no power. Is it even possible?
Yes.
That's quite a glib answer. A Ukrainian winter with no power. What about babies and small children. And old people? I am not sure that is endurable. Think of the hospitals too
The nearest equivalent would be the Siege of Leningrad, perhaps
They died primarily of starvation and close range shelling, and it lasted nearly three years. The comparison just isn't valid.
You can take an issue seriously without resorting to the overwrought, excitable, and frankly genuinely weird fantasies to which you are constantly attracted.
Yes yes. Tish tish
I cannot find a parallel in history with what Putin MIGHT do that is better than the Siege of Leningrad. Similar climate, similar numbers, similar experience. Can you? And we can only predict what might happen by learning from history. Plenty of military people have already compared this war to WW1 and WW2 in its brutality
If the Mods think it is distasteful to speculate in this way, then they can tell me - and I will stop. Otherwise I will continue to comment, and you are free to read, or not
Some of the towns and cities in the east have been without power for some time.
This isn’t’t the siege of Leningrad, though. You’d realise the comparison is stupid hyperbole if you paused to think about it.
No, people are misinterpreting my Leningrad comparison. I was trying to find an example of a chilly Eurasian city that went without power for a long time (the military situation is clearly different). I should not have added that "1 million died" bit at the end. Can't resist a dramatic flourish. My apologies
Anyway I have found a better comparison. Aleppo
This is V V Putin's Wartime Playbook. Cut the power and the water. It was done to Aleppo
"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the civilian population in the city of Aleppo is undergoing enormous suffering because of deliberate cuts to water and electricity supplies. Around two million people live in the city but many, on both sides of the front lines, are having severe difficulty in accessing water."
And it’s not Aleppo. Which compared with Ukrainian was virtually undefeated.
Sometimes you just have to accept that things are what they are, rather than one of your mental analogues.
But there's always the chance that one of my mental analogies will inspire lurking journalists to write Spectator articles, so I feel I am providing a service, nonetheless
I doubt even the Speccie would print a "Let's give in to Putin" piece tbh.
They published "I wanked myself into hospital". They'll publish anything.
They wanked themselves into “journalism”.
Producing seminal contributions to mass-debate?
I’m pleased I came from this particular punning thread when I did.
The problem with all this talk of nuclear war is that normal political chat isn't particularly interesting. I'm completely unfussed by what gilts are doing, distracted by trying to work out how best to store water in my flat.
Can we detox tomorrow with the Indy Supreme Court case, perhaps some moths & planning laws on Wednesday, and UBI on Thursday? Happy to revisit DEATH BY FIRE next week.
The Supreme Court case is fascinating. Both sides agree that a binding referendum is reserved. But This isn't binding, its a Brexit referendum. Whilst I can see the instinct of some unionists - especially Tories - will be to say "advisory only, boycott it, waste of public money" that's a difficult argument considering their support for Brexit.
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
Since the referendum isn't binding, I see no reason why it should be reserved.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
It would be fun if the SC allowed a non binding referendum, but it won't. It is clearly not in the list of devolved matters, and clearly in the list of reserved matters. It is sophistry to suggest that a legislated referendum on independence is not a matter touching upon "the union of the Kingdoms" under the Scotland Act.
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
There is no list of devolved matters is there? I thought there's a list of reserved matters, but this isn't in it, and anything that isn't on the list isn't reserved.
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
The future of the Union IS on the reserved matters and that should include any referendum on that topic
Why should it?
Anything that changes the Union should be reserved. Simply holding a referendum doesn't change the Union, so shouldn't be.
Presumably the SNP thinks the referendum would have an effect - even if only moral leverage. So by definition it is changing the balance of forces related to the union.
Comments
Short of a sucessful small war (retaking the Channel Islands from a French invasion?), she's had it.
Gloomy, but not fatalistic. And he repeats a lot of the stuff we've said on here. He is nervous of nukes
https://www.futurity.org/ukraine-war-russia-politics-2810502-2/
TLDR:
"I still expect the war to last at least another year, maybe two. Both sides still have plans and ideas to test before their expectations are likely to converge."
So it would be much more fun if the SC simply says no. Then we get to test nippie's pledge to make their next manifesto one page of paper saying "Should Scotland be an Independent Country".
I've been worried about Russia for a long time, but strangely this war has been quite helpful. Until February of this year Russia was impressive, if also terrifying. Now it just looks like a sad and pathetic regime - retarded even - with no redeeming features. Also, the response has made me feel a lot more positive about western democracy, even though I still get irritated by the 'woke' stuff - Putin has no answers to any of that.
https://twitter.com/OCCRP/status/1564575528497156098
BREAKING: Customs officers have raided a network of German companies suspected of selling precursors that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons to a Russian firm contracted by the FSB. <=i>
Their fellow insular nationalists, by contrast, have nothing at all to say.
https://slantchev.wordpress.com/2022/09/25/endgame/
Another military/politics professor. Basically he thinks nukes are really quite likely
And he wrote this before the Kerch Bridge
Interestingly, he agrees with PB hawks. We have to confront Putin even if it means the end of the world
"As I said when the war began, this is the defining moment for the 21st century, and we cannot afford to submit to Putin’s threats or even actual use of nukes. What’s the point of having the most formidable military in the world if it fails to defend our way of life?"
https://twitter.com/_RobbieMoore/status/1577750867075383316
Chaser.
https://twitter.com/_RobbieMoore/status/1579554355963133953?s=20&t=kwJSrSYd1yAh3r_awxl4Lw
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1579563857743613953
OR SOMETHING
I know which I’d prefer.
As I posted over the weekend, the next Indy ref could prove crucial for SNP. What might have swung such support around SNP after the last one was the thinking and the feeling the last Indy Ref vote was stolen, stolen by lies about the SNPs plan, by late in the day lies about a promised grand influx of power instead of full independence to split off those with doubts, stolen by lies from an unholy alliance of Con and Lab and Lib concocting this steal together.
But if the next one is lost - which I’m not saying it’s certain to be - but if it is, it can be lost this time more clearly on basis of SNP and their plans for independence, and promises of financial security and economic growth when independent just not convincing the electorate to take the plunge - which was certainly big element in last one wasn’t it? The whole psychology around that type of loss might be very different the SNP could take the hit for the independence referendum failing - a realisation in voters minds independence rejected again, this time decisively, so if it ever happens it’s not going to happen for a generation or more, might lead to drop in SNP support in the short to medium term, allowing other parties to seize back some ground.
I note SNP are imminently about to publish their economic plan for independent Scotland. Good idea, prepare ground work on the economic and monetary change years in advance undermines your opponents lying about your intentions. Should be an interesting document for PB to discuss. Does it have a name?
https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media/FP550TWXsAAcGRP.jpg
So the rail bridge is cast concrete on top of the steel box girder deck. That's presumably what the ballast is sitting on.
That concrete is screwed, and the box girders must be suspect.
Months to fix. Unless you are Russian.
Shouldn't you have put the name of the poster you were calling 'glib' in?
Or is it a guessing game?
Funny, that.
Could it be cause and effect?
They really are fools. At least lash it up long enough to last the winter.
The SNP should win the Supreme Court case, but its curious to see which way they go.
Great stuff, though.
Or, indeed, if Sturgeon should be impeached?
That's a very steep rise.
If Liverpool City Council decided to hold a non-binding referendum on whether to become an independent People's Republic of Liverpool, then that should be OK.
Actually doing anything about it, that's a different matter. But a non-binding vote? Yes, absolutely OK in my eyes.
It's not as if there is a Republic/Kingdom of Scotland passport. Which is rather the whole point.
Which seems fair enough to me given it's largely her fault.
The Spectator
Sales of The Spectator surge 16 per cent to (another) all-time high
17 February 2022, 1:29pm
"The UK magazine industry releases figures today and we're delighted to announce that The Spectator sold a weekly average of 106,905 copies last year, up 16 per cent on 2020 and — yet again — our best year ever. The Spectator has now almost doubled our sales over a decade where sales of consumer magazines fell by two-thirds."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sales-of-the-spectator-surge-16-per-cent-to-another-all-time-high
The Spectator now outsells the Guardian, as the editor says. Which is really quite astonishing. When I were a lad the Speccie sold about 20,000 and the Guardian about 400,000. There was no question which was more important
Now? Close call
This is also encouraging because the Spectator is properly intellectual, with remarkable and often beautiful articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Strathclyde_water_referendum
On the same basis it would not make a difference if the SNP won every MP in Scotland as if the SC does rule she has no power to change the Union without Westminster consent Sturgeon could be arrested for contempt of court for trying to declare independence as Catalan Nationalists were by Madrid. Sturgeon realises this and has therefore ruled out UDI
It's a delaying tactic and no more or less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pytE76rdwNQ
Clearly the (unpaid) interest will accumulate faster. But will that (other things being equal) affect her chance of getting the loan? I don't think it will, and for those not seeking to pass on an asset to the next generation, that may be a good solution.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/to-avoid-a-tory-wipe-out-heres-what-not-to-do-k7vhr2hsr
The union of the Kingdoms doesn't get changed by this legislation, any more than it gets changed if YouGov do an opinion poll. Its simply a law on asking the question of the voters, there is no action beyond that, and asking a question isn't on the reserved list.
You may call it sophistry, but isn't a lot of what the law is about sophistry?
Anyway, Private Eye (yes I know, fortnightly) gets about double The Spectator.
Now, I have no idea how the SC would interpret that. They might think advisory referendums are pretty much binding in the actual course of things and therefore not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament (I believe our resident Scots lawyer expects this outcome). But the 1998 Act does not explicitly rule one out.
@TelePolitics Is this the fault of the anti growth coalition?
Blair was very stupid when he gave it that name. Part of his fatal reference for all things Yankee.
Anything that changes the Union should be reserved. Simply holding a referendum doesn't change the Union, so shouldn't be.
The process is called 'living.'
Which apparently includes most of her MPs.
My gut feel for the first is that they don't enough many missiles left. They seemed to have cobbled together whatever they could find to launch these attacks. Russia has 55 Tu-95 bombers yet apparently only 2 of them were in the air launching cruise missiles.
On the frontlines I think it may take a little longer for the Ukrainians to pause for breath before the next push. I don't think many supplies will be making it over the Kerch bridge for a while putting the Kherson front at greater risk for the Russians. They can't wait too long though as from some videos I've seen the mud is starting.
No mention of the Union at all. Checkmate.
https://on.ft.com/3Cdylnq https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1579578553561387008/photo/1
Sweden: not yet - the centre-right are still haggling. Maybe this week.
I'm on holiday in Copenhagen next week, looking forward to the massed banks of posters on every lamp post. I used as a child to think that the number of posters was an indication of how it was going, and got my dad to drive me round counting them. Sadly not - everyone has much the same number.
NEW THREAD
The Spectator has published some excellent jokes in recent years, but I fear that some people haven't realised that they were just satirical tomfoolery.
There was no statute passed by the Crown and Westminster against proroguing Parliament, although that has now been ruled against by the SC. There is statute passed by Crown and Westminster against any actions on the Union by Holyrood without Westminster consent
If Sturgeon tried to hold an illegal referendum or declare UDI after a SC judgement confirming the Union and the power to grant a referendum on it was reserved to Westminster then she would be in contempt of court and could be arrested as Catalan nationalist leaders were liable for arrest after defying the Spanish SC