SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
That's a really good question, and would depend on what the rulebook says.
Now, if it was up to me, 'suspension' would bar a member of any party from voting in any party-related matter, including leader. Otherwise it's not really a suspension. But the rulebook may not say that; or worse of all, may say nothing...
Remarkable how many fans Cherry has among non voting right wingers, reminiscent of the glory days of PB Tories when they’d regularly list their favourite lefties (invariably a beauty parade of the more ghastly Blairites). Shame they don’t have an iota of influence, I’m sure they have the best interests of the SNP at heart.
I thought you did have a vote?
Edit - also, interesting to note you're going round abusing the messenger and ignoring the pertinent issues she raises.
Great that you’ve generously spread your snowflakey definition of abuse to the wider world. Can you point out my abuse of Cherry just so I know how to avoid it in future?
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
That's a rally good question, and would depend on what the rulebook says.
Now, if it was up to me, 'suspension' would bar a member of any party from voting in any party-related matter, including leader. Otherwise it's not really a suspension. But the rulebook may not say that; or worse of all, may say nothing...
However, as it says (in effect) membership shall only cease upon resignation, death or expulsion, and suspended members have by definition not done any of the three, I would suggest they should according to that have a vote.
Otherwise I suspect Cherry is right and this will end up in the courts.
Think about it - if they don't have a vote, it makes it dead easy for the party hierarchy to manipulate the result by suspending anyone they choose for three months. 'Oh, that candidate once said Scotland should join in a new Union with Iceland and Ireland, which was clearly a dumb policy. Suspend her at once for bringing the party into disrepute and so the two thirds of members who want her as leader have to pick The Right Person instead...'
Remarkable how many fans Cherry has among non voting right wingers, reminiscent of the glory days of PB Tories when they’d regularly list their favourite lefties (invariably a beauty parade of the more ghastly Blairites). Shame they don’t have an iota of influence, I’m sure they have the best interests of the SNP at heart.
I thought you did have a vote?
Edit - also, interesting to note you're going round abusing the messenger and ignoring the pertinent issues she raises.
Great that you’ve generously spread your snowflakey definition of abuse to the wider world. Can you point out my abuse of Cherry just so I know how to avoid it in future?
Just reread your post.
Incidentally, the messenger in question doesn't have to be Cherry, although it's interesting you jumped to that conclusion.
I despair at the Scottish Greens even more than at their counterparts in England.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
Wouldn’t call it an obsession. Not unless you’re going to claim that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour are also “obsessed” about trans?
Most Scots care about unfairly disadvantaged people. After all, we have plenty of experience.
Remarkable how many fans Cherry has among non voting right wingers, reminiscent of the glory days of PB Tories when they’d regularly list their favourite lefties (invariably a beauty parade of the more ghastly Blairites). Shame they don’t have an iota of influence, I’m sure they have the best interests of the SNP at heart.
Didn't Cherry have a lot of fans more generally after she came to prominence during the Brexit arguments? She only fell out of favour with some in the SNP when she had a different view on the trans issue.
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
A KC tweets:
A number of @theSNP members have been suspended from the party without due process or because of complaints of “transphobia” on a definition which is not #ECHR or #EqualityLaw compliant. They must be reinstated or the leadership result could be challenged
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
That's a rally good question, and would depend on what the rulebook says.
Now, if it was up to me, 'suspension' would bar a member of any party from voting in any party-related matter, including leader. Otherwise it's not really a suspension. But the rulebook may not say that; or worse of all, may say nothing...
However, as it says (in effect) membership shall only cease upon resignation, death or expulsion, and suspended members have by definition not done any of the three, I would suggest they should according to that have a vote.
Otherwise I suspect Cherry is right and this will end up in the courts.
Think about it - if they don't have a vote, it makes it dead easy for the party hierarchy to manipulate the result by suspending anyone they choose for three months. 'Oh, that candidate once said Scotland should join in a new Union with Iceland and Ireland, which was clearly a dumb policy. Suspend her at once for bringing the party into disrepute and so the two thirds of members who want her as leader have to pick The Right Person instead...'
I agree in part, and that's a mess. But I was responding to the article, which says: "SNP members who quit in protest ..."
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
I despair at the Scottish Greens even more than at their counterparts in England.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
Wouldn’t call it an obsession. Not unless you’re going to claim that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour are also “obsessed” about trans?
Most Scots care about unfairly disadvantaged people. After all, we have plenty of experience.
I expect lefty parties to wibble on about this sort of issue. I expect a Green Party to have a laser sharp focus on environmentalism. Otherwise they are just another party of the left, so what is the point?
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
A KC tweets:
A number of @theSNP members have been suspended from the party without due process or because of complaints of “transphobia” on a definition which is not #ECHR or #EqualityLaw compliant. They must be reinstated or the leadership result could be challenged
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
That's a rally good question, and would depend on what the rulebook says.
Now, if it was up to me, 'suspension' would bar a member of any party from voting in any party-related matter, including leader. Otherwise it's not really a suspension. But the rulebook may not say that; or worse of all, may say nothing...
However, as it says (in effect) membership shall only cease upon resignation, death or expulsion, and suspended members have by definition not done any of the three, I would suggest they should according to that have a vote.
Otherwise I suspect Cherry is right and this will end up in the courts.
Think about it - if they don't have a vote, it makes it dead easy for the party hierarchy to manipulate the result by suspending anyone they choose for three months. 'Oh, that candidate once said Scotland should join in a new Union with Iceland and Ireland, which was clearly a dumb policy. Suspend her at once for bringing the party into disrepute and so the two thirds of members who want her as leader have to pick The Right Person instead...'
I agree in part, and that's a mess. But I was responding to the article, which says: "SNP members who quit in protest ..."
What information will be published about the SNP Electorate?
Do we get to find out how many have quit in protest, which is relevant for betting purposes? (On topic from me - YAY!)
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
That's a rally good question, and would depend on what the rulebook says.
Now, if it was up to me, 'suspension' would bar a member of any party from voting in any party-related matter, including leader. Otherwise it's not really a suspension. But the rulebook may not say that; or worse of all, may say nothing...
However, as it says (in effect) membership shall only cease upon resignation, death or expulsion, and suspended members have by definition not done any of the three, I would suggest they should according to that have a vote.
Otherwise I suspect Cherry is right and this will end up in the courts.
Think about it - if they don't have a vote, it makes it dead easy for the party hierarchy to manipulate the result by suspending anyone they choose for three months. 'Oh, that candidate once said Scotland should join in a new Union with Iceland and Ireland, which was clearly a dumb policy. Suspend her at once for bringing the party into disrepute and so the two thirds of members who want her as leader have to pick The Right Person instead...'
I agree in part, and that's a mess. But I was responding to the article, which says: "SNP members who quit in protest ..."
What information will be published about the SNP Electorate?
Do we get to find out how many have quit in protest, which is relevant for betting purposes? (On topic from me - YAY!)
I saw something that said the SNP wouldn't provide an update on their membership figures - ie the size of the electorate. So I imagine people will be making assumptions about the turnout to extrapolate to an estimate of the size of the membership.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
A KC tweets:
A number of @theSNP members have been suspended from the party without due process or because of complaints of “transphobia” on a definition which is not #ECHR or #EqualityLaw compliant. They must be reinstated or the leadership result could be challenged
Ending with a three day hearing in the Supreme Court. Scottish KCs have to survive in these hard times.
Fair points.
I don't see quitters as an issue if they try and return as carpetbaggers - unless Cherry's larger reform proposal (see the twitter essay) is to be pursued.
Cherry's question on people expelled administratively is a real one, however.
I despair at the Scottish Greens even more than at their counterparts in England.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
As a Green (E&W flavour) myself, I tend to agree with the broader point; there is not enough focus on environmental issues and a bit too much flirting with disenchanted Momentum types (to my mind - speaking as someone who is probably a socialist - the Green movement ought to be a broad church). FWIWI in my lay knowledge in the England and Wales party there is no 'obsession' with trans at all.
In absolute fairness though, it is sometimes about political expedience, especially at the locals - there isn't always a burning local green issue to focus on, so it helps to have an ideological hinterland to campaign on and establish a base, and they're striking a chord in places like Bristol, Sheffield and Stockport.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
Interesting article about Ukraine's desire to expunge Russian culture from Ukraine. Pushkin himself, of course, was not exactly innocent of expressions of hatred.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-do-ukrainians-think-about-russians-now ...“Never been a war without those feelings,” he told me. “You are attacked, you hate the people attacking you.” The exchanges at the Lviv BookForum were, he said, “I guess, about how Russian culture is used to whitewash Russian imperialism in the world. That’s a thornier question. In principle, I agree with this: it was important to see the connection between German Romanticism and the Nazis. Or between Kipling and the Bengal famine. That doesn’t mean one can’t read Pushkin again, but without decoding the imperialist influence, and seeing how it permeates all of Russian culture, we won’t get to the root of this war.” He added, “This isn’t just ‘Putin’s war.’ It reflects centuries of Russian culture and social attitudes. Russian culture and society is totally invested in this war. So, yes, in that sense, it’s a war of all that is Russian.”..
Remarkable how many fans Cherry has among non voting right wingers, reminiscent of the glory days of PB Tories when they’d regularly list their favourite lefties (invariably a beauty parade of the more ghastly Blairites). Shame they don’t have an iota of influence, I’m sure they have the best interests of the SNP at heart.
I thought you did have a vote?
Edit - also, interesting to note you're going round abusing the messenger and ignoring the pertinent issues she raises.
Great that you’ve generously spread your snowflakey definition of abuse to the wider world. Can you point out my abuse of Cherry just so I know how to avoid it in future?
Just reread your post.
Incidentally, the messenger in question doesn't have to be Cherry, although it's interesting you jumped to that conclusion.
Once a prissy teacher who will brook no questioning of their guff, always a prissy teacher etc.
You should probably not have replied uninvited to a post about Cherry using the pronoun ‘she’ if you were intent on making a wider if entirely unintelligible point.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
Obvs this is not subject to conclusions. The thinking I like is that which looks for radical breaks and widespread consequence. I think it's too early to judge the consequence of the French Revolution. From the fall of Rome (a process not an event) to the rise of Islam there are periods of astonishing murkiness, to the extent that it literally isn't possible to trace any family tree, however posh, in the west back to antiquity.
Nothing like that has happened since. The rise of Islam, Christendom and the formation of European identities from the barbarian west remain more central to modernity than any subsequent rupture.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
The US legacy media, really is eating itself at the moment.
Groups of younger staff really do think they should be activists at work, and that any opinions with which they disagree are seen as physically hurtful.
This is what follows from universities teaching people *what* to think, rather than teaching them *how* to think.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
Move over Leondamus, there’s someone even shitter at Scotpol than you. From the man that brought you Kezia Dugdale is the next First Minister and Salmond in the House of Lords:
Oh yes, the chap whom Carlotta et al follow slavishly for the quality and accuracy of his balanced insights on Scotpolitics.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
In fairness, WWII was history when I were a lad at school in the 80s and 90s, and the 1960s are now even more distant than the 1940s were then.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
A KC tweets:
A number of @theSNP members have been suspended from the party without due process or because of complaints of “transphobia” on a definition which is not #ECHR or #EqualityLaw compliant. They must be reinstated or the leadership result could be challenged
Ending with a three day hearing in the Supreme Court. Scottish KCs have to survive in these hard times.
Fair points.
I don't see quitters as an issue if they try and return as carpetbaggers - unless Cherry's larger reform proposal (see the twitter essay) is to be pursued.
Cherry's question on people expelled administratively is a real one, however.
Also protects against the sort of Tory who joined Labour for £3 and voted for Mr Corbyn.
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
Didn't May or Boris suspend MPs so they could participate in a vote of no contest?
Nonetheless if the proper process was followed on suspension seems like no vote by default.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
Unless in Antrim and with one or two of us when it's 1690 that is ultra recent.
Wings voodoo poll: Who do YOU WANT to be the new SNP leader? (Semi-final votes are now clear, but we've eliminated Joanna Cherry as she's ruled herself out of standing.)
Of course if Regan (who resigned her post because of opposition to GRR) did win would the Greens stay in government? If not, would they vote against Regan as FM?
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
When I talked to him about it, I didn’t ask him about Philip Larkin. Possibly because his father was there. I did though ask him about the effect of the end of national service, and he said he didn’t mention it. Personally, I thought it had an enormous effect on the music industry, having been around at the time. He said he got a good mark for it though!
Remarkable how many fans Cherry has among non voting right wingers, reminiscent of the glory days of PB Tories when they’d regularly list their favourite lefties (invariably a beauty parade of the more ghastly Blairites). Shame they don’t have an iota of influence, I’m sure they have the best interests of the SNP at heart.
I thought you did have a vote?
Edit - also, interesting to note you're going round abusing the messenger and ignoring the pertinent issues she raises.
Great that you’ve generously spread your snowflakey definition of abuse to the wider world. Can you point out my abuse of Cherry just so I know how to avoid it in future?
Just reread your post.
Incidentally, the messenger in question doesn't have to be Cherry, although it's interesting you jumped to that conclusion.
Once a prissy teacher who will brook no questioning of their guff, always a prissy teacher etc.
You should probably not have replied uninvited to a post about Cherry using the pronoun ‘she’ if you were intent on making a wider if entirely unintelligible point.
Bit early to be drunk, isn't it? Although I appreciate you're having a tough time right now.
Interesting that McConnell implicitly criticises the Trumpites by his unequivocal support for Ukraine although he will of course spinelessly fold the moment his career demands he does.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
When I talked to him about it, I didn’t ask him about Philip Larkin. Possibly because his father was there. I did though ask him about the effect of the end of national service, and he said he didn’t mention it. Personally, I thought it had an enormous effect on the music industry, having been around at the time. He said he got a good mark for it though!
I found some ephemera from my student days - college magazines, drematic soc play programmes, college admin bumf - in a clearout the other day and asked the archivist if they were any good for their collection: very much so, and just received by them. Slightly disconcerting to have one's everyday life as a student carefully preserved amidst mediaeval manuscripts and Victorian correspondence.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I remember the last year or so of it. And I remember being cross, I couldn’t go to the VE Day party at school because I had chickenpox!
Hobby Club’s Missing Balloon Feared Shot Down By USAF https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/hobby-clubs-missing-balloon-feared-shot-down-usaf ...A small, globe-trotting balloon declared “missing in action” by an Illinois-based hobbyist club on Feb. 15 has emerged as a candidate to explain one of the three mystery objects shot down by four heat-seeking missiles launched by U.S. Air Force fighters since Feb. 10.
The club—the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade (NIBBB)—is not pointing fingers yet.
But the circumstantial evidence is at least intriguing. The club’s silver-coated, party-style, “pico balloon” reported its last position on Feb. 10 at 38,910 ft. off the west coast of Alaska, and a popular forecasting tool—the HYSPLIT model provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—projected the cylindrically shaped object would be floating high over the central part of the Yukon Territory on Feb. 11. That is the same day a Lockheed Martin F-22 shot down an unidentified object of a similar description and altitude in the same general area... ...Launching high-altitude, circumnavigational pico balloons has emerged only within the past decade. Meadows and his son Lee discovered it was possible to calculate the amount of helium gas necessary to make a common latex balloon neutrally buoyant at altitudes above 43,000 ft. The balloons carry an 11-gram tracker on a tether, along with HF and VHF/UHF antennas to update their positions to ham radio receivers around the world. At any given moment, several dozen such balloons are aloft, with some circling the globe several times before they malfunction or fail for other reasons. The launch teams seldom recover their balloons...
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I remember the last year or so of it. And I remember being cross, I couldn’t go to the VE Day party at school because I had chickenpox!
You were one of the people I was thinking of, along with @Big_G_NorthWales .
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
Yep. I was born eight years after Armstrong walked on the moon. But it might as well have been 80 years.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
Perhaps it is the cultural shift that took place in the 60s, then. WWII seemed very recent, and was a large part of the culture, while the fifties were terra incognita to me as a child in the sixties.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
The odd thing about thinking about e.g. the 1910s or the 1960s is that people would be alive who remembered a far wider range of decades, in the case of the 1960s, the last of the Victorian age. My honorary granny ('sister' of my real granny in an adoptive family) was born c. 1885 and was a teenager during the Boer War. And there is Admiral P. Wallis (1791-1892) who died many, many years after the Shannon vs Chesapeake battle in which he made his name - didn't quite get to see the new Dreadnoughts, alas.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I was born in 1961, which is only 16 years after the end of WW2. Maybe it was because I was brought up on army camps but the legacy of the war was all around from the bomb shelters, the fortifications in the fields that became great gang huts, the commando comics we read, the games we played. You were aware of it without having even been close to participating.
I was slightly startled when one of my kids was studying MLK and the freedom riders not in modern studies but in history classes. No doubt my parents and every generation of parents felt the same.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Why do I bother to pay for Sky Sports when they never seem to have any bloody cricket on?
Honestly. Aus play India and England play NZ and what do we get? Hit and giggle.
(And no, I am not going to fork out for BT as well. I had it once and it was rubbish.)
Evening session of India v Australia just about to start, no idea what channel it’s on in the UK though. Aus at 199/6 having chosen to bat, it’s likely to be a session of wickets.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
The odd thing about thinking about e.g. the 1910s or the 1960s is that people would be alive who remembered a far wider range of decades, in the case of the 1960s, the last of the Victorian age. My honorary granny ('sister' of my real granny in an adoptive family) was born c. 1885 and was a teenager during the Boer War. And there is Admiral P. Wallis (1791-1892) who died many, many years after the Shannon vs Chesapeake battle in which he made his name - didn't quite get to see the new Dreadnoughts, alas.
Or your fellow Scotsman Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, who served with enormous distinction in the Napoleonic Wars before becoming a mercenary in the South American and Greek wars. Born in the age of the horse and sail, lived to see steamships, railways and cameras. Was apparently very annoyed to be rejected for command in the Crimean War merely because he was 77 at the time war broke out!
Why do I bother to pay for Sky Sports when they never seem to have any bloody cricket on?
Honestly. Aus play India and England play NZ and what do we get? Hit and giggle.
(And no, I am not going to fork out for BT as well. I had it once and it was rubbish.)
Evening session of India v Australia just about to start, no idea what channel it’s on in the UK though. Aus at 199/6 having chosen to bat, it’s likely to be a session of wickets.
BT Sport.
As is the NZ test.
Fuckers.
There's nothing like a clatter of Aussie wickets to brighten up your morning.
Although TBF I'll watch Ashwin bowl any day of the week simply for the pleasure of watching an extraordinary master at work.
If he's bowling at England I might be watching through my fingers of course!
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
I note that the public participation in advocacy group protests is banned - quite separate from public attacks on colleagues.
Given that any commercial newspaper or state broadcaster is in itself an advocacy group, I find that slightly illogical. And is it banned to, say, demonstrate for safer streets when your neighbour's toddler is run over? Or be hired out to open a supermarket Mr Blobby style?
Why do I bother to pay for Sky Sports when they never seem to have any bloody cricket on?
Honestly. Aus play India and England play NZ and what do we get? Hit and giggle.
(And no, I am not going to fork out for BT as well. I had it once and it was rubbish.)
What is pretty unforgiveable so far as BT Sports is concerned is the lack of highlights packages at more sensible times of the day, especially when the powers that be think a day night match in NZ is a good idea. I saw half a dozen overs this morning live but have really struggled to see much else. Its deeply frustrating.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I remember the last year or so of it. And I remember being cross, I couldn’t go to the VE Day party at school because I had chickenpox!
You were one of the people I was thinking of, along with @Big_G_NorthWales .
Good morning
I was born in Feb 1944 so I do not have memories of the end of the war but I do recall rationing and the late Queens wedding. However my wife who was born in 1939 remembers the air crews billotted in the family homes in Lossiemouth and so many not returning. They were very emotional times for so many
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I remember the last year or so of it. And I remember being cross, I couldn’t go to the VE Day party at school because I had chickenpox!
You were one of the people I was thinking of, along with @Big_G_NorthWales .
Good morning
I was born in Feb 1944 so I do not have memories of the end of the war but I do recall rationing and the late Queens wedding. However my wife who was born in 1939 remembers the air crews billotted in the family homes in Lossiemouth and so many not returning. They were very emotional times for so many
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
The odd thing about thinking about e.g. the 1910s or the 1960s is that people would be alive who remembered a far wider range of decades, in the case of the 1960s, the last of the Victorian age. My honorary granny ('sister' of my real granny in an adoptive family) was born c. 1885 and was a teenager during the Boer War. And there is Admiral P. Wallis (1791-1892) who died many, many years after the Shannon vs Chesapeake battle in which he made his name - didn't quite get to see the new Dreadnoughts, alas.
Or your fellow Scotsman Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, who served with enormous distinction in the Napoleonic Wars before becoming a mercenary in the South American and Greek wars. Born in the age of the horse and sail, lived to see steamships, railways and cameras. Was apparently very annoyed to be rejected for command in the Crimean War merely because he was 77 at the time war broke out!
At least the Navy had the sense to do so. Unlike the Army, whose chap kept talking about the Russians as the French enemy ...
Family came from Culross - rather a nice place to visit btw.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
I despair at the Scottish Greens even more than at their counterparts in England.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
Wouldn’t call it an obsession. Not unless you’re going to claim that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour are also “obsessed” about trans?
Most Scots care about unfairly disadvantaged people. After all, we have plenty of experience.
I expect lefty parties to wibble on about this sort of issue. I expect a Green Party to have a laser sharp focus on environmentalism. Otherwise they are just another party of the left, so what is the point?
Huh? Have you never noticed that Green parties throughout Europe are parties of the left? Nothing particularly unusual about the Scottish Green Party.
Why shouldn’t the left have various different philosophical strands? The right and centre do too. It’s simple human nature.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I remember the last year or so of it. And I remember being cross, I couldn’t go to the VE Day party at school because I had chickenpox!
You were one of the people I was thinking of, along with @Big_G_NorthWales .
Good morning
I was born in Feb 1944 so I do not have memories of the end of the war but I do recall rationing and the late Queens wedding. However my wife who was born in 1939 remembers the air crews billotted in the family homes in Lossiemouth and so many not returning. They were very emotional times for so many
Oops. Sorry to have overestimated your age.
Hope you and the family are well.
Thank you, both my wife and I are recovering from a second bout of a dreadful coughing bug (non covid)
2024 is a big year for us as being a leap year baby I have my 80th on the 29th Feb and our diamond wedding on the 16th May so very keen to keep taking our pills !!!!
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
I think the problem is she could be a very competent First Minister, but that is not what the Zoomers want in a party leader.
I despair at the Scottish Greens even more than at their counterparts in England.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
Other parties can be environmentalist. Names don't make a party after all.
Conservatives in particular. People who live in nice houses with nice gardens in nice villages surrounded by nice countryside are frightfully keen on the environment.
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
I've never worked in an organisation that had any ethos other than try and sell more stuff. Well apart from RBT Connect (The BT/Rotherham council partnership) which felt a bit odd.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
I remember the last year or so of it. And I remember being cross, I couldn’t go to the VE Day party at school because I had chickenpox!
You were one of the people I was thinking of, along with @Big_G_NorthWales .
Good morning
I was born in Feb 1944 so I do not have memories of the end of the war but I do recall rationing and the late Queens wedding. However my wife who was born in 1939 remembers the air crews billotted in the family homes in Lossiemouth and so many not returning. They were very emotional times for so many
Oops. Sorry to have overestimated your age.
Hope you and the family are well.
Thank you, both my wife and I are recovering from a second bout of a dreadful coughing bug (non covid)
2024 is a big year for us as being a leap year baby I have my 80th on the 29th Feb and our diamond wedding on the 16th May so very keen to keep taking our pills !!!!
Best of luck! Will the King send you a message, has the queen did for us. Eldest grandson had to ask for it though!
The million groat question; why was la Sturge pushed until she jumped?
Soft pedalling on Sindyref? Trans stuff? General ghastliness? Something else I don't know about?
Probably a mixture of all of them and more. But this matters. First, because different successors solve different problems (see those pushing Forbes because she's sound on social issues- probably too sound). But also because some people are going to have dumped Sturgeon to see her replaced by someone (from their POV) just as terrible. Best recent example I can think of for that is when May replaced Cameron.
SNP members who quit in protest at Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial transgender policy will be prohibited from voting for her replacement as leader if they try to rejoin the party.
Party bosses said ballots would be given to members who joined the SNP only before the leadership race formally began on Wednesday night, hours after Sturgeon unexpectedly announced her resignation.
Mike Russell, the SNP president, said the cut-off date was vital to prevent the election being “manipulated” by the party’s critics.
He said former members who became disillusioned with Sturgeon’s regime were welcome to apply for readmission “unless they have publicly left and attacked the party” but would be barred from voting in the leadership election.
The announcement will infuriate the SNP’s feminist wing including Ash Regan, the former community safety minister, and Joanna Cherry, the former party justice spokeswoman, who said members who were suspended or left over Sturgeon’s transgender policies must be given a vote.
So, they quit because they disagreed with one of the party's policies. The SNP say they are welcome to reapply for membership (as long as they have not been badmouthing the party). But they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.
Don't Westminster parties have rules about a time gap between getting membership and voting in leadership elections, to stop people joining just to vote for leader?
Seems utterly sensible from the SNP to me. These ex-members threw their toys out of the pram; if they wanted to vote on this sort of thing, they should have stayed in.
If they've quit, it's fair enough they don't have a vote, but what if they're suspended? What rules apply then?
A KC tweets:
A number of @theSNP members have been suspended from the party without due process or because of complaints of “transphobia” on a definition which is not #ECHR or #EqualityLaw compliant. They must be reinstated or the leadership result could be challenged
Ending with a three day hearing in the Supreme Court. Scottish KCs have to survive in these hard times.
Fair points.
I don't see quitters as an issue if they try and return as carpetbaggers - unless Cherry's larger reform proposal (see the twitter essay) is to be pursued.
Cherry's question on people expelled administratively is a real one, however.
Also protects against the sort of Tory who joined Labour for £3 and voted for Mr Corbyn.
Given the relative numbers of party members, even now, I don't see that having very much impact even if possible!
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Parody Rishi Sunak @Parody_PM We are on the verge of a new deal over the Northern Ireland Protocol - all that's required is for the DUP to be reasonable.
Listening to Sammy Wilson this morning on R4 I'm not sure the selective, non-routine checks between NI & GB is going to swing it for the DUP.
They don’t want a deal . Never have . The EU seems to have moved quite a lot which is still not enough for the DUP nutjobs and their fellow nutjobs in the ERG.
Listening to Sammy Wilson this morning on R4 I'm not sure the selective, non-routine checks between NI & GB is going to swing it for the DUP.
They don’t want a deal . Never have . The EU seems to have moved quite a lot which is still not enough for the DUP nutjobs and their fellow nutjobs in the ERG.
It all started with the Treaty of Rome, of course! What do you expect?
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
I'll believe it when they start sacking people. It's just words until then.
Who, in your view, should be sacked?
Those who are abusing their co-workers on the behest of activist organisations. There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties.
Who says it's on the 'behest' of activist organisations? And which side are abusing their co-workers, considering some of the co-workers will be LGBT or trans?
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
They can complain in private to management, not take it public on social or other media. Once a decision is made the employees get on board and sell it or they get out. I've been in situations where I didn't agree with the company direction and I didn't bitch on social media, I quit and found a new job at a company where the values reflected my own.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
Something the activists deny. Have you, by chance, read the letter? One of their points is that NYT coverage takes the side of anti-trans activist organisations without saying soon the article.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
Of course there's something they can do, they can leave. It's a highly effective tool for skilled workers to damage the company with which they now disagree.
Banning abuse of colleagues is fair enough, but it's pretty odd to be doing that for the expression of opinions.
I’ve got some tragic news for you old boy: the 70s are ancient history 😄
Ancient history ends around 500CE. Then a bit of a transition with Merovingians, the rise of Islam and the fall of ancient Persia. The modern age emerges with Charlemagne following which an unbroken, slightly punctuated thread of the Modern world continues to this day. The 1970s are ultra recent times, still with us daily.
The Tudors are definitely Early Modern by academic historical nomenclature. I think the Modern period of history would normally start with the French Revolution of 1789.
My grandson, studying history at Manchester University, has had to write an essay on social changes in the 1960s. Just saying! And good morning everybody!
"Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three"
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
The interesting period is the decade before you were born. Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
I never found the 1970s that inaccessible to be honest. Or indeed the 1930s and 1940s. I still have some trouble realising just how long ago the Second World War was because growing up its legacy still surrounded me in many ways. But it ended nearly 80 years ago and there are comparatively few people now alive who have clear memories of it.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
The odd thing about thinking about e.g. the 1910s or the 1960s is that people would be alive who remembered a far wider range of decades, in the case of the 1960s, the last of the Victorian age. My honorary granny ('sister' of my real granny in an adoptive family) was born c. 1885 and was a teenager during the Boer War. And there is Admiral P. Wallis (1791-1892) who died many, many years after the Shannon vs Chesapeake battle in which he made his name - didn't quite get to see the new Dreadnoughts, alas.
Or your fellow Scotsman Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, who served with enormous distinction in the Napoleonic Wars before becoming a mercenary in the South American and Greek wars. Born in the age of the horse and sail, lived to see steamships, railways and cameras. Was apparently very annoyed to be rejected for command in the Crimean War merely because he was 77 at the time war broke out!
People still living overlap with Thomas Hardy, 1840-1928. Just 20 longish lives takes you back to antiquity.
Listening to Sammy Wilson this morning on R4 I'm not sure the selective, non-routine checks between NI & GB is going to swing it for the DUP.
They don’t want a deal . Never have . The EU seems to have moved quite a lot which is still not enough for the DUP nutjobs and their fellow nutjobs in the ERG.
DUP and ERG are insufficiently challenged about this question of what they actually want in a logically possible universe, as opposed to what (everything) they don't want.
This could get fun….The US Human Rights Campaign having a major hissy fit over the NYT Opinion piece on JK Rowling’s purported transphobia:
The New York Times published an article titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” today.
Oh look, Mr Carlotta is on again about trans issues.
His master’s orders.
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader, she would make Lee Anderson look like a bohemian social liberal!!
You really are a total weirdo.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
I think for Kate Forbes the question is whether she is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with the pressures of leadership, especially with a very young child. She is decent, smart, sensible and unusually principled for a politician. But whether she could hold the broad coalition together with anything like the skill that Sturgeon did must be open to question. In fairness that is going to be a big ask for anyone.
All valid points. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.
Comments
Now, if it was up to me, 'suspension' would bar a member of any party from voting in any party-related matter, including leader. Otherwise it's not really a suspension. But the rulebook may not say that; or worse of all, may say nothing...
On the other hand, that might mean we get to find out who shares the new ball with Cummins tonight.
Mr. Dickson, the reigns of Vespasian and Titus were rather good, though.
Preserving Scottish rainforests? Taking care of Pine Martens and Wild Cats? No, they obsess about trans.
There seems little point in an environmentalist voting for such a party.
Can you point out my abuse of Cherry just so I know how to avoid it in future?
https://www.snp.org/rom/
However, as it says (in effect) membership shall only cease upon resignation, death or expulsion, and suspended members have by definition not done any of the three, I would suggest they should according to that have a vote.
Otherwise I suspect Cherry is right and this will end up in the courts.
Think about it - if they don't have a vote, it makes it dead easy for the party hierarchy to manipulate the result by suspending anyone they choose for three months. 'Oh, that candidate once said Scotland should join in a new Union with Iceland and Ireland, which was clearly a dumb policy. Suspend her at once for bringing the party into disrepute and so the two thirds of members who want her as leader have to pick The Right Person instead...'
Incidentally, the messenger in question doesn't have to be Cherry, although it's interesting you jumped to that conclusion.
Most Scots care about unfairly disadvantaged people. After all, we have plenty of experience.
A number of @theSNP members have been suspended from the party without due process or because of complaints of “transphobia” on a definition which is not #ECHR or #EqualityLaw compliant. They must be reinstated or the leadership result could be challenged
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1626145568169816066?s=20
Do we get to find out how many have quit in protest, which is relevant for betting purposes? (On topic from me - YAY!)
Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.
Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
https://twitter.com/maxwelltani/status/1626324277422133253?s=20
I don't see quitters as an issue if they try and return as carpetbaggers - unless Cherry's larger reform proposal (see the twitter essay) is to be pursued.
Cherry's question on people expelled administratively is a real one, however.
In absolute fairness though, it is sometimes about political expedience, especially at the locals - there isn't always a burning local green issue to focus on, so it helps to have an ideological hinterland to campaign on and establish a base, and they're striking a chord in places like Bristol, Sheffield and Stockport.
Just saying!
And good morning everybody!
Pushkin himself, of course, was not exactly innocent of expressions of hatred.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-do-ukrainians-think-about-russians-now
...“Never been a war without those feelings,” he told me. “You are attacked, you hate the people attacking you.” The exchanges at the Lviv BookForum were, he said, “I guess, about how Russian culture is used to whitewash Russian imperialism in the world. That’s a thornier question. In principle, I agree with this: it was important to see the connection between German Romanticism and the Nazis. Or between Kipling and the Bengal famine. That doesn’t mean one can’t read Pushkin again, but without decoding the imperialist influence, and seeing how it permeates all of Russian culture, we won’t get to the root of this war.” He added, “This isn’t just ‘Putin’s war.’ It reflects centuries of Russian culture and social attitudes. Russian culture and society is totally invested in this war. So, yes, in that sense, it’s a war of all that is Russian.”..
You should probably not have replied uninvited to a post about Cherry using the pronoun ‘she’ if you were intent on making a wider if entirely unintelligible point.
Nothing like that has happened since. The rise of Islam, Christendom and the formation of European identities from the barbarian west remain more central to modernity than any subsequent rupture.
Groups of younger staff really do think they should be activists at work, and that any opinions with which they disagree are seen as physically hurtful.
This is what follows from universities teaching people *what* to think, rather than teaching them *how* to think.
And good morning to you
A certain sort of stage in life is achieved when children come home from school having studied in history stuff you lived through. The Cuba missile crisis comes to mind for me.
Nonetheless if the proper process was followed on suspension seems like no vote by default.
Who do YOU WANT to be the new SNP leader? (Semi-final votes are now clear, but we've eliminated Joanna Cherry as she's ruled herself out of standing.)
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1626497703923404802?s=20
Of course if Regan (who resigned her post because of opposition to GRR) did win would the Greens stay in government? If not, would they vote against Regan as FM?
I did though ask him about the effect of the end of national service, and he said he didn’t mention it. Personally, I thought it had an enormous effect on the music industry, having been around at the time.
He said he got a good mark for it though!
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1626244170917478400
Interesting that McConnell implicitly criticises the Trumpites by his unequivocal support for Ukraine although he will of course spinelessly fold the moment his career demands he does.
Not yet history for the adults around you - it's just the water they swam in - but an oddly inaccessible history for you.
Get me going on the 1910s and they feel pretty alien.
"There is no room in the workplace for split loyalties."
Really? The plebs on the shop floor can't complain to higher-ups such as yourself when they think the organisation is taking the wrong course?
Hobby Club’s Missing Balloon Feared Shot Down By USAF
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/hobby-clubs-missing-balloon-feared-shot-down-usaf
...A small, globe-trotting balloon declared “missing in action” by an Illinois-based hobbyist club on Feb. 15 has emerged as a candidate to explain one of the three mystery objects shot down by four heat-seeking missiles launched by U.S. Air Force fighters since Feb. 10.
The club—the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade (NIBBB)—is not pointing fingers yet.
But the circumstantial evidence is at least intriguing. The club’s silver-coated, party-style, “pico balloon” reported its last position on Feb. 10 at 38,910 ft. off the west coast of Alaska, and a popular forecasting tool—the HYSPLIT model provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—projected the cylindrically shaped object would be floating high over the central part of the Yukon Territory on Feb. 11. That is the same day a Lockheed Martin F-22 shot down an unidentified object of a similar description and altitude in the same general area...
...Launching high-altitude, circumnavigational pico balloons has emerged only within the past decade. Meadows and his son Lee discovered it was possible to calculate the amount of helium gas necessary to make a common latex balloon neutrally buoyant at altitudes above 43,000 ft. The balloons carry an 11-gram tracker on a tether, along with HF and VHF/UHF antennas to update their positions to ham radio receivers around the world. At any given moment, several dozen such balloons are aloft, with some circling the globe several times before they malfunction or fail for other reasons. The launch teams seldom recover their balloons...
Honestly. Aus play India and England play NZ and what do we get? Hit and giggle.
(And no, I am not going to fork out for BT as well. I had it once and it was rubbish.)
WWII seemed very recent, and was a large part of the culture, while the fifties were terra incognita to me as a child in the sixties.
I was slightly startled when one of my kids was studying MLK and the freedom riders not in modern studies but in history classes. No doubt my parents and every generation of parents felt the same.
And it's the Times management who are suggesting the abuse is being organised by activists, not me.
As is the NZ test.
Fuckers.
There's nothing like a clatter of Aussie wickets to brighten up your morning.
Although TBF I'll watch Ashwin bowl any day of the week simply for the pleasure of watching an extraordinary master at work.
If he's bowling at England I might be watching through my fingers of course!
Given that any commercial newspaper or state broadcaster is in itself an advocacy group, I find that slightly illogical. And is it banned to, say, demonstrate for safer streets when your neighbour's toddler is run over? Or be hired out to open a supermarket Mr Blobby style?
Recently read a trilogy on the Seleukid Empire, and it seems ropey rebellions were quite the tradition for the Jews by the time the Romans took over.
Kate is a lovely person. Really caring, and widely respected in her community, even by people who don’t vote for her. She exhibits the positive characteristics of a true Christian. Unlike you and your violent fascist fantasies.
The history of trade unionism and employment law would be very different if your ethos had been applied - let the workers complain, but when they're ignored, there's nothing else they can do.
I was born in Feb 1944 so I do not have memories of the end of the war but I do recall rationing and the late Queens wedding. However my wife who was born in 1939 remembers the air crews billotted in the family homes in Lossiemouth and so many not returning. They were very emotional times for so many
Hope you and the family are well.
Family came from Culross - rather a nice place to visit btw.
https://hiddenscotland.co/listings/admiral-thomas-cochrane-statue-culross/
Ulster says NO!
Why shouldn’t the left have various different philosophical strands? The right and centre do too. It’s simple human nature.
2024 is a big year for us as being a leap year baby I have my 80th on the 29th Feb and our diamond wedding on the 16th May so very keen to keep taking our pills !!!!
Soft pedalling on Sindyref? Trans stuff? General ghastliness? Something else I don't know about?
Probably a mixture of all of them and more. But this matters. First, because different successors solve different problems (see those pushing Forbes because she's sound on social issues- probably too sound). But also because some people are going to have dumped Sturgeon to see her replaced by someone (from their POV) just as terrible. Best recent example I can think of for that is when May replaced Cameron.
Parody Rishi Sunak
@Parody_PM
We are on the verge of a new deal over the Northern Ireland Protocol - all that's required is for the DUP to be reasonable.
Oh bollocks.
9:19 AM · Feb 17, 2023
Christian Wakeford for PM!!
I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that she’ll stand. She, quite rightly, will put her young family first. She’s only recently married and has a wee baby. And nowhere near experienced enough politically.