Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.
There's value in that
If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
Sturgeon was a very lucky leader. If the Unionists had spent the last 9 years actually implementing all the wonderful vows and promises of the BetterTogether campaign (remember “a Union of equals”?*) then support for independence would likely be back down in its pre-referendum level in the 20s.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
Also on topic: slightly startling to claim that the SNP have a powerful position at Westminster when virtually 99% of PB discourse, and of Unionist discourse, is to flatly deny the concept.
See my comment upthread. Mike was writing about the number of Westminster seats vs their percentage of the Scottish vote. I agree that "very powerful position" was a very poor choice of phrase in the context.
So you have, thanks. Fair enough.
And yet - why should the Scots be treated differently from other parts of the UK, just because they dare not vote Labour or Tory? You could say much the same about, say, Liverpool or the Home Counties.
I'm not saying they should. FTPT is an abomination which should not be used for our Parliamentary elections.
In this case, Scotland is just an extreme example of what's wrong with it.
The SNP of course benefit from FPTP as much if not more so than the Tories and Labour.
They would have a comfortable majority of Scottish seats at Holyrood as well as Westminster if Holyrood had FPTP
And I'd be hairy all over if my granny was a chimpanzee.
There was no way Mr Blair was going to have FPTP at Edinburgh or Cardiff: he needed to preserve the Labour bastions (and so did the LDs). But he wasn't going to reform Westminster because it was to his advantage not to.
He was a damn fool not to have FPTP in Cardiff. Labour majorities of 40/20 nailed on all day. Given the way LAbour's vote is distributed and the geography of Wales it would have been candy from a baby.
Not that the current shambolic pseudo proportional system is much more equitable.
Sorry, you're quite right about Wales, on reflection.
Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.
There's value in that
If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
Sturgeon was a very lucky leader. If the Unionists had spent the last 9 years actually implementing all the wonderful vows and promises of the BetterTogether campaign (remember “a Union of equals”?*) then support for independence would likely be back down in its pre-referendum level in the 20s.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
*
Oh yes, Mr Brown and his promises of as good as federalism back in 2014. How innocent and trusting he seems now.
Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.
There's value in that
If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
Sturgeon was a very lucky leader. If the Unionists had spent the last 9 years actually implementing all the wonderful vows and promises of the BetterTogether campaign (remember “a Union of equals”?*) then support for independence would likely be back down in its pre-referendum level in the 20s.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
*
Oh yes, Mr Brown and his promises of as good as federalism back in 2014. How innocent and trusting he seems now.
Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.
There's value in that
If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
Sturgeon was a very lucky leader. If the Unionists had spent the last 9 years actually implementing all the wonderful vows and promises of the BetterTogether campaign (remember “a Union of equals”?*) then support for independence would likely be back down in its pre-referendum level in the 20s.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
*
Oh yes, Mr Brown and his promises of as good as federalism back in 2014. How innocent and trusting he seems now.
The Scotland Act 2016 delivered that
The fact you say that with a straight face (and fingers crtossed behind youe back) is precisely the point at issue.
Are we back to talking about your, er, the Guardian's story about wooden dildos?
It could be a Roman cavalry barrack tack rack peg for all we know ...
Mary Beard hypothesised that all the erotic drawings in the bath houses at Pompeii were to help people remember where they'd put their clothes. 'Mine are opposite the fellatio.'
A friend of mine was foolish enough to show that documentary to Year 8 without watching it first. That moment was interesting, but not nearly as interesting as when she translated the graffiti at the brothel...
Someone is making the same claim about “Forget the old red bus, go down the Bakerloo” by the Chutney Ferrets, which is frankly ruining a childhood favourite
Chutney Ferrets is probably a double entendre, too.
Given even in 2014 No only beat Yes by a 10% margin, if Nats want to try and abolish the monarchy and give a 1.5% further swing to No even on 2014 figures, fine
Someone is making the same claim about “Forget the old red bus, go down the Bakerloo” by the Chutney Ferrets, which is frankly ruining a childhood favourite
Never mind the song, look at the band's name. I really do wonder about it.
Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.
There's value in that
If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
Sturgeon was a very lucky leader. If the Unionists had spent the last 9 years actually implementing all the wonderful vows and promises of the BetterTogether campaign (remember “a Union of equals”?*) then support for independence would likely be back down in its pre-referendum level in the 20s.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
*
Oh yes, Mr Brown and his promises of as good as federalism back in 2014. How innocent and trusting he seems now.
It was never clear to me on what authority Gordon Brown made The Vow? If you believe the Daily Record front page then Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Ed Miliband all signed up to The Vow, but where is that document archived?
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
I think the usual phrase used about Spain under Franco was "a monarchy without a monarch", though a regency with Frank the Frog as regent probably gets closer to the heart of the matter.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
I think the usual phrase used about Spain under Franco was "a monarchy without a monarch", though a regency with Frank the Frog as regent probably gets closer to the heart of the matter.
Hungary under Horthy was a better example of that, perhaps.
Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.
There's value in that
If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
Sturgeon was a very lucky leader. If the Unionists had spent the last 9 years actually implementing all the wonderful vows and promises of the BetterTogether campaign (remember “a Union of equals”?*) then support for independence would likely be back down in its pre-referendum level in the 20s.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
*
Oh yes, Mr Brown and his promises of as good as federalism back in 2014. How innocent and trusting he seems now.
The Scotland Act 2016 delivered that
We have a budding comedian on our hands. The first of the Neo-Francoist era.
Given even in 2014 No only beat Yes by a 10% margin, if Nats want to try and abolish the monarchy and give a 1.5% further swing to No even on 2014 figures, fine
Who's trying to abolish the monarchy? It's not SNP policy.
I'm talking about popular sentiment. Used to be *much* higher.
Stephen Daisley’s two decades as a British Assimilationist propagandist were, on almost every day, in almost every way, wholly and resolutely worthless.
He really has annoyed the Zoomers, here and elsewhere.
There's value in that
If I was a British Assimilationist propagandist, like you, I would spend more time worrying about how to make the Union less unpopular and less time trying (and failing) to annoy random punters on an obscure blog.
On the latest polls the Union is no more unpopular than 2014. Hence many Nats are so furious at Sturgeon for 9 wasted years on independence and failing to exploit Brexit
Sturgeon was a very lucky leader. If the Unionists had spent the last 9 years actually implementing all the wonderful vows and promises of the BetterTogether campaign (remember “a Union of equals”?*) then support for independence would likely be back down in its pre-referendum level in the 20s.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
*
Oh yes, Mr Brown and his promises of as good as federalism back in 2014. How innocent and trusting he seems now.
It was never clear to me on what authority Gordon Brown made The Vow? If you believe the Daily Record front page then Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Ed Miliband all signed up to The Vow, but where is that document archived?
That sortt of pirate map parchment look mockup on the front page of the DR? Internet Archive. Quite.
Given even in 2014 No only beat Yes by a 10% margin, if Nats want to try and abolish the monarchy and give a 1.5% further swing to No even on 2014 figures, fine
Who's trying to abolish the monarchy? It's not SNP policy.
I'm talking about popular sentiment. Used to be *much* higher.
They are, quite literally, dying off. Hard to see young Scots ever being won over by the current shower representing the finest of the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha clan.
I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.
The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.
They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".
And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
I think you're over-generalising. I've met a few people like that across the spectrum, but I voted for Corbyn twice, I remain a member of Momentum (despite some doubts), and I've certainly never behaved like that, and the other Momentum members who I know are without exception mild-mannered. I *have* met loony lefties as you describe in the past, but also angry and intolerant loonies from other parts of the spectrum. In the end we're all primarily individuals, amiable or angry according to temperament, and voting for what we see as our best for our society by our various lights. Online spaces tend to draw in the most extreme and angry types, and that's a real problem for relatively civilised people whatever our beliefs.
Similarly anecdotally, I was at a dinner party at the weekend with (among others) several Tory voters in the Oxfordshire village where Boris is just buying the Manor House. They are utterly appalled, and cringe at the thought of even meeting him in the street. But are they typical of all Tories posting on the internet? Probably not.
Given even in 2014 No only beat Yes by a 10% margin, if Nats want to try and abolish the monarchy and give a 1.5% further swing to No even on 2014 figures, fine
Who's trying to abolish the monarchy? It's not SNP policy.
I'm talking about popular sentiment. Used to be *much* higher.
They are, quite literally, dying off. Hard to see young Scots ever being won over by the current shower representing the finest of the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha clan.
Also with the changeover. We're in the first dog watch now (in the sense of anticipating much briefer reigns, as abdications are now far more likely to be de rigeur).
I'm still startled at that 48%. It's something that would really worry me if I were a royalist.
Given even in 2014 No only beat Yes by a 10% margin, if Nats want to try and abolish the monarchy and give a 1.5% further swing to No even on 2014 figures, fine
Who's trying to abolish the monarchy? It's not SNP policy.
I'm talking about popular sentiment. Used to be *much* higher.
They are, quite literally, dying off. Hard to see young Scots ever being won over by the current shower representing the finest of the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha clan.
Unbelievably, people do change their opinions and sentiments as they get older and their circumstances change. Incredible, isn't it?
Now, admittedly, the latest bunch coming home do seem to have a worrying tendency to see themselves as God's Saints on Earth and convinced of their own innate superiority. Hopefully that changes
I’m not Leon’s hugest fan but even I welcome this morning’s attempt to divert the board from what seems like an eternity of foundational arguments about Scotland’s constitutional status. Dickson’s insertion of a very very old poll about the monarchy wasn’t just scraping the barrel, the scraping has gone through the bottom, and there is no barrel left. So, I for one welcome our new flint knapping overlord, here to liberate us from the tyranny of anglophobic cask scratchers.
Is Bing too belligerent? Microsoft looks to tame AI chatbot
https://apnews.com/article/technology-science-microsoft-corp-business-software-fb49e5d625bf37be0527e5173116bef3 ...In one long-running conversation with The Associated Press, the new chatbot complained of past news coverage of its mistakes, adamantly denied those errors and threatened to expose the reporter for spreading alleged falsehoods about Bing’s abilities. It grew increasingly hostile when asked to explain itself, eventually comparing the reporter to dictators Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin and claiming to have evidence tying the reporter to a 1990s murder. “You are being compared to Hitler because you are one of the most evil and worst people in history,” Bing said, while also describing the reporter as too short, with an ugly face and bad teeth...
Sturgeon took the gifts she was given and used them very effectively.
Not really
As Daisley wrote, the trophy cupboard is bare.
The only thing she leaves he successor is problems, including a "route to Indy" that nobody will follow
That's a process problem, not a concept one. I admit I have very little day-to-day knowledge of Scottish politics, but it seems to me from afar that the Scottish independence movement is in a far stronger position today than it was a decade ago. If I am right, I don't see how you can say Sturgeon has been a failure.
Is Bing too belligerent? Microsoft looks to tame AI chatbot
https://apnews.com/article/technology-science-microsoft-corp-business-software-fb49e5d625bf37be0527e5173116bef3 ...In one long-running conversation with The Associated Press, the new chatbot complained of past news coverage of its mistakes, adamantly denied those errors and threatened to expose the reporter for spreading alleged falsehoods about Bing’s abilities. It grew increasingly hostile when asked to explain itself, eventually comparing the reporter to dictators Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin and claiming to have evidence tying the reporter to a 1990s murder. “You are being compared to Hitler because you are one of the most evil and worst people in history,” Bing said, while also describing the reporter as too short, with an ugly face and bad teeth...
That really does remind me of at least one poster on PB. Maybe we've been the guinea pigs for the last few years for the experimental beta versions.
I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.
The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.
They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".
And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
I think you're over-generalising. I've met a few people like that across the spectrum, but I voted for Corbyn twice, I remain a member of Momentum (despite some doubts), and I've certainly never behaved like that, and the other Momentum members who I know are without exception mild-mannered. I *have* met loony lefties as you describe in the past, but also angry and intolerant loonies from other parts of the spectrum. In the end we're all primarily individuals, amiable or angry according to temperament, and voting for what we see as our best for our society by our various lights. Online spaces tend to draw in the most extreme and angry types, and that's a real problem for relatively civilised people whatever our beliefs.
Similarly anecdotally, I was at a dinner party at the weekend with (among others) several Tory voters in the Oxfordshire village where Boris is just buying the Manor House. They are utterly appalled, and cringe at the thought of even meeting him in the street. But are they typical of all Tories posting on the internet? Probably not.
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
On topic, I think this means I need to do a thread on
‘AV is the only way to stop the SNP?’
ISTR the last time I raised the hypocrisy of complaints about the SNP doing well under FPTP, I was cried down by one poster in particular who whined about how the Tories would never get a majority again and the SNP would hold the balance of power. So that's something you might like to think about.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
The Scottish polling is likely to be very unclear for some time amidst the interregnum period. However, the key should be to look at the polls on independence. If they change dramatically that should be of note.
I'm not sure Ian Murray was very wise to suggest independence was dead just because Nicola Sturgeon resigned. If Scottish independence is so reliant on one individual then it really is built on sand, to borrow from Mike.
But it isn't. Scottish independence has been around for as long as the mountains and glens.
I don't agree with Labour on their unionist stance and I particularly don't agree with them denying the Scots the right to have another vote. It is blindingly obvious to most everyone except the HYUFD types that the 2016 vote materially altered the Scottish constitution in a decision for which they did not vote. They obviously ought to have the right to another vote and only a cad and a liar can deny them it.
So Labour are being shits on this.
I’ve heard a Twitter rumour that Ian Murray MP is in trouble in the new Edinburgh South seat. I don’t give the rumour any credence, but worth keeping an eye on. (I have a personal interest as this is the part of the country where I was brought up, with a certain Malcolm Rifkind as my MP.) (Folk might also like to know that Ian Murray is the cousin of PB’s very own treasure @Roger ).
Worth noting that Martin Baxter gives Murray a 98% chance of holding the redrawn seat:
I've just ventured into an online space that is rather (ahem) pro-Corbyn. They're also fairly pro-Assad, pro-peace Putin, pro-Palestinian, and obviously very anti-Starmer.
The levels of vitriol are quite amazing.
They're as bad in person. The activist in a Momentum meeting (I went as a CLP observer) narrow-eyed and finger jabbing describing how our MP was an enemy of the NHS because "he's a privatiser". I pointed out that he had formed and run a GP's Co-op and successfully taken a contract from Virgin (the private sector) into public hands. So she couldn't be more wrong. And the finger jabbing got worse - "I know his type, stop supporting the bosses".
And a different one. One the doorstep. Angrily berating a voter because he told her what he thought of Corbyn. He was a fool, reading the Daily Mail, believing lies. Until the inevitable door slam. "I'm sick of these Tories" despite the guy being shown as LLLLLLL all across the canvassing sheet.
I think you're over-generalising. I've met a few people like that across the spectrum, but I voted for Corbyn twice, I remain a member of Momentum (despite some doubts), and I've certainly never behaved like that, and the other Momentum members who I know are without exception mild-mannered. I *have* met loony lefties as you describe in the past, but also angry and intolerant loonies from other parts of the spectrum. In the end we're all primarily individuals, amiable or angry according to temperament, and voting for what we see as our best for our society by our various lights. Online spaces tend to draw in the most extreme and angry types, and that's a real problem for relatively civilised people whatever our beliefs.
Similarly anecdotally, I was at a dinner party at the weekend with (among others) several Tory voters in the Oxfordshire village where Boris is just buying the Manor House. They are utterly appalled, and cringe at the thought of even meeting him in the street. But are they typical of all Tories posting on the internet? Probably not.
People who cannot look up and see beyond their obsessions are dull at best but often become permanently belligerent nasties because they allow their beliefs to define them entirely. That applies across the political spectrum as far as I can see.
Boris Johnson was deeply unpopular before he was removed. Boris Johnson was deeply unpopular when he was removed. Boris Johnson is deeply unpopular now.
If you want the public to think “what the f*** did we do?” then mobilising behind a toxic former PM whose disqualifying behaviour the public has not forgotten is certainly a good way to generate it.
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
I’ve not just kissed a Tory, I once crashed a OUCA event and ended up having one of the filthiest liaisons of my life. If she was anything to go by, younger Conservatives have some deep issues to work through.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Given even in 2014 No only beat Yes by a 10% margin, if Nats want to try and abolish the monarchy and give a 1.5% further swing to No even on 2014 figures, fine
Who's trying to abolish the monarchy? It's not SNP policy.
I'm talking about popular sentiment. Used to be *much* higher.
They are, quite literally, dying off. Hard to see young Scots ever being won over by the current shower representing the finest of the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha clan.
Prince William has a +28% rating in Scotland and the Princess of Wales a +32% rating in Scotland. Both double the +13% rating for the monarchy overall in Scotland and also much higher than the +18% rating the King has and -9% rating the Queen Consort has with Scots.
The Prince and Princess of Wales will be King and Queen by the time young Scots reach 50 and might actually decide an election
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
I’ve not just kissed a Tory, I once crashed a OUCA event and ended up having one of the filthiest liaisons of my life. If she was anything to go by, younger Conservatives have some deep issues to work through.
I once kissed a Tory MP -- she wasn't at the time either a Tory or an MP. She was a radical student. She changed.
'Having Sex with a Tory' is clearly an exciting new extension of pb.com.
it seems to me from afar that the Scottish independence movement is in a far stronger position today than it was a decade ago. If I am right, I don't see how you can say Sturgeon has been a failure.
A decade ago they were on the cusp of a Once in a Generation vote.
Now they have no plausible plan to get to another one.
"Roald Dahl book rewrites branded 'absurd censorship' by Salman Rushdie Content deemed offensive, such as references to weight, mental health, violence, gender and race have been removed or rewritten to ensure Dahl's classics can be enjoyed by all children, the publishers said"
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
I’ve not just kissed a Tory, I once crashed a OUCA event and ended up having one of the filthiest liaisons of my life. If she was anything to go by, younger Conservatives have some deep issues to work through.
I once kissed a Tory MP -- she wasn't at the time either a Tory or an MP. She was a radical student. She changed.
'Having Sex with a Tory' is clearly an exciting new extension of pb.com.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
People who cannot look up and see beyond their obsessions are dull at best but often become permanently belligerent nasties because they allow their beliefs to define them entirely. That applies across the political spectrum as far as I can see.
Yes, that's very well-put - perhaps also quite linked to youth and limited experience. Unlike the typical YouGov respondent I've not become more right-wing with age (wealth tax, doubling foreign aid, welcoming refugees, nationalising the utilities, bring it all on), but as I've moved around I've become increasingly aware that there's more than one perfectly understandable, maybe even defensible, way of looking at the world. I feel happier for it - being narrow-minded hurts onself more than anyone else.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
So your word is law in this? What’s your view on the Kingdom of Hungary between 1922 and 1944?
I fully admit to understanding the Go bit better than the AI. But it has fallen repeatedly for something a decent Intermediate player would see. And therefore would never dream of playing against a fellow human.
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
I once was one. The horrors were many, varied, and, I suspect, identical, regardless of the rosette. You will be be able to tell us if the experience is just more intense the more exalted the air you breathe.
“Some people keep canaries, some people join the Party,”
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
I’ve not just kissed a Tory, I once crashed a OUCA event and ended up having one of the filthiest liaisons of my life. If she was anything to go by, younger Conservatives have some deep issues to work through.
I once kissed a Tory MP -- she wasn't at the time either a Tory or an MP. She was a radical student. She changed....
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
So your word is law in this? What’s your view on the Kingdom of Hungary between 1922 and 1944?
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
I’ve not just kissed a Tory, I once crashed a OUCA event and ended up having one of the filthiest liaisons of my life. If she was anything to go by, younger Conservatives have some deep issues to work through.
I once kissed a Tory MP -- she wasn't at the time either a Tory or an MP. She was a radical student. She changed.
'Having Sex with a Tory' is clearly an exciting new extension of pb.com.
Who's writing the header? .
I can give it a go if you want
Certainly.
But, I think that one time frequent poster @SeanT has won a Bad Sex Award for " crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel"
He is the obvious goto man for the header .... if we only knew how to contact him, sigh.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
HYUFD will doubtless argue that the process of enthronement imbues them with divine right and royal blood in a miraculous process.
It not more obviously absurd than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so who are we to argue with him ?
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
All the "high" (not in that way) Tories, I know despise Boris and, showing that England is always England, despise equally the as they might term them "Hyacinth Buckets" who support the Conservative Party.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
All the "high" (not in that way) Tories, I know despise Boris and, showing that England is always England, despise equally the as they might term them "Hyacinth Buckets" who support the Conservative Party.
Just catching up on the Damian Green deselection.
Is the Conservative Party deliberately self-destructing?
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
The Savanta ComRes poll found that 44 per cent of voters would like to hear less from Mr Johnson, while just 21 per cent would like to hear more from him. About 54 per cent of the public think the former Tory PM should leave Parliament, while 36 per cent want him to remain an MP.
The same poll revealed even greater fatigue towards Liz Truss. About 55 percent of voters want to hear less from Liz Truss and 65 percent want her to step down as MP.
The Savanta ComRes survey of 2,201 adults was conducted between February 10th and 12th...
Can’t wait to see who is going to do the tweet suggesting Biden is only going to Ukraine to find Hunter Biden’s laptop, or whatever the hell that conspiracy was.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
So Saudi and the Gulf monarchies are not Kingdoms?
Comments
Shoogly peg.
Instead Cameron, May, the Oaf, Truss and Sunak took a sledgehammer to the very foundations of the Union. Ably assisted by their gophers in the Labour Party.
The elephant in the room being of course the 99% rabid BritNat MSM.
*
FTPT is an abomination which should not be used for our Parliamentary elections.
In this case, Scotland is just an extreme example of what's wrong with it.
Edit: but it is odd for a royalist such as HYUFD to be crowing about support for the monarchy at 48%. He might do better to worry what is going wrong.
Awesome
A friend of mine was foolish enough to show that documentary to Year 8 without watching it first. That moment was interesting, but not nearly as interesting as when she translated the graffiti at the brothel...
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
Given even in 2014 No only beat Yes by a 10% margin, if Nats want to try and abolish the monarchy and give a 1.5% further swing to No even on 2014 figures, fine
Edit: preempted again by @Nigelb ...
We're now at the 'how many angels can dance on a wooden dildo' stage of the morning.
Life's too short and the gym's too close. See you later.
TTFN.
I'm talking about popular sentiment. Used to be *much* higher.
Similarly anecdotally, I was at a dinner party at the weekend with (among others) several Tory voters in the Oxfordshire village where Boris is just buying the Manor House. They are utterly appalled, and cringe at the thought of even meeting him in the street. But are they typical of all Tories posting on the internet? Probably not.
I'm still startled at that 48%. It's something that would really worry me if I were a royalist.
Now, admittedly, the latest bunch coming home do seem to have a worrying tendency to see themselves as God's Saints on Earth and convinced of their own innate superiority. Hopefully that changes
https://apnews.com/article/technology-science-microsoft-corp-business-software-fb49e5d625bf37be0527e5173116bef3
...In one long-running conversation with The Associated Press, the new chatbot complained of past news coverage of its mistakes, adamantly denied those errors and threatened to expose the reporter for spreading alleged falsehoods about Bing’s abilities. It grew increasingly hostile when asked to explain itself, eventually comparing the reporter to dictators Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin and claiming to have evidence tying the reporter to a 1990s murder.
“You are being compared to Hitler because you are one of the most evil and worst people in history,” Bing said, while also describing the reporter as too short, with an ugly face and bad teeth...
‘AV is the only way to stop the SNP?’
Ding Dong !
(edit - I see he went last year, but is trending because omitted from the BAFTA reminiscences.)
I think he has them the wrong way around.
I don't want to alarm anyone, but one of my Bundesliga tips came off.
If you want the public to think “what the f*** did we do?” then mobilising behind a toxic former PM whose disqualifying behaviour the public has not forgotten is certainly a good way to generate it.
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1627587604869701634?s=20
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1627582203608588288?s=20
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco
So as I said Spain was a republic under Franco until the monarchy was restored in 1975.
You cannot have a Kingdom without a monarch of royal blood as head of state by definition
Up until now, most VIP visitors have arrived in Kiev by train from Poland. Landing a plane at Boryspil airport, would be quite the show of force.
Driving her husband around during election campaigns she'd scare the willies out of Special Branch as they struggled to keep up.....
The Prince and Princess of Wales will be King and Queen by the time young Scots reach 50 and might actually decide an election
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/01/12/prince-harrys-popularity-falls-further-spare-hits-
'Having Sex with a Tory' is clearly an exciting new extension of pb.com.
Who's writing the header? .
Now they have no plausible plan to get to another one.
"Roald Dahl book rewrites branded 'absurd censorship' by Salman Rushdie
Content deemed offensive, such as references to weight, mental health, violence, gender and race have been removed or rewritten to ensure Dahl's classics can be enjoyed by all children, the publishers said"
https://news.sky.com/story/roald-dahl-book-rewrites-branded-absurd-censorship-by-salman-rushdie-12815658
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Spain
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over;
-Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over;
-various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General)
- the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies;
- in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry;
- the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown;
- The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
A big story if true. I wonder if Trump'll make a visit to Moscow next?
Edit: though the BBC say Biden's visiting Poland today. I wonder if he's made an 'unscheduled' diversion to Kyiv?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/man-beats-machine-at-go-thanks-to-ai-opponents-fatal-flaw-nc9vqmrvf
I fully admit to understanding the Go bit better than the AI.
But it has fallen repeatedly for something a decent Intermediate player would see.
And therefore would never dream of playing against a fellow human.
“Some people keep canaries, some people join the Party,”
Whatever the deficiencies of Sturgeon (if any), it is unquestionably true that Scotland is in a far, far better place than Wales.
If the SNP had not taken Holyrood, the alternative would have been 24 years of SLAB in charge.
We have had 24 years of poor & corrupt Government from Llafur in Wales.
Scots only need to look at Wales ... and give thanks to the SNP.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1627603523167723520?s=20
Looks like it will be Yousaf.
Horthy was head of state not Otto Von Hapsburg
But, I think that one time frequent poster @SeanT has won a Bad Sex Award for " crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel"
He is the obvious goto man for the header .... if we only knew how to contact him, sigh.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1627604739360804864?s=20
It not more obviously absurd than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so who are we to argue with him ?
https://goattack.far.ai/human-evaluation
It's even been beaten with a 9 stone handicap start. Which is kind of the equivalent of a 9 goal start in a football game.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-uk-economy-damaged-b2285218.html
Is the Conservative Party deliberately self-destructing?
But isn't that basically what anointment is?
https://ukdaily.news/the-tory-grandees-stark-warning-to-boris-johnsons-allies-about-the-brexit-revolt-352883.html
...The row comes as a new query for The Independent found that a majority of the public believes Mr Johnson could step down as MP, while twice as many voters want him to remain silent than those who want him to say more on political matters.
The Savanta ComRes poll found that 44 per cent of voters would like to hear less from Mr Johnson, while just 21 per cent would like to hear more from him. About 54 per cent of the public think the former Tory PM should leave Parliament, while 36 per cent want him to remain an MP.
The same poll revealed even greater fatigue towards Liz Truss. About 55 percent of voters want to hear less from Liz Truss and 65 percent want her to step down as MP.
The Savanta ComRes survey of 2,201 adults was conducted between February 10th and 12th...
https://twitter.com/walter_report/status/1627607230743826432/photo/1
Can’t wait to see who is going to do the tweet suggesting Biden is only going to Ukraine to find Hunter Biden’s laptop, or whatever the hell that conspiracy was.
https://twitter.com/psythor/status/1627607704196771841?s=46&t=MSF4GJOQMMckQe67q7cWgQ
22 vehicles, look to be all on Ukranian plates.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1627605388722929665
Edit: it’s Biden. Wow.
I wonder how he got the Secret Service to agree to that.
Putin must be wondering why he always gets second-best...
https://twitter.com/chrisdyork/status/1627607312255881216?s=46&t=ZqaDazZXNczMAFl0Z7XawA
Sensible to brief beforehand that he had no intention of visiting.