We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
This I find difficult to understand. There was a free vote on the subject, which passed and is now enacted. The candidate isn’t saying she will try and repeal this law, she’s merely saying that she would have voted with her conscience.
But it's an exemplar of how she might act on similar issues coming up in the future.
She is one person , what F**king dummy thinks she can get something bad through just on her own, people on here are even more stupid , thick and bigoted than I thought, which amazes me. ESpecially given the arseholes, crooks, deviants and halfwits they elect in England.
Your background as a career diplomat is hard to disguise
We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
This I find difficult to understand. There was a free vote on the subject, which passed and is now enacted. The candidate isn’t saying she will try and repeal this law, she’s merely saying that she would have voted with her conscience.
Private belief isn’t private anymore.
You must be loyal to the faith, to the bone.
Surprised at the attempts here by people twisting themselves into mental pretzels to try and defend homophobia.
She literally said she would vote against equal rights for people based on their sexual orientation. How is that a matter of "private belief" that should be beyond criticism?
Because as long as she accepted the result, whatever her views, that's democracy.
Just as I was uncomfortable with Rocco Butiglione being vetoed from an EU commission post because of his Catholicism.
They would have been much stronger ground to have vetoed him on the grounds he was an out and out crook.
She’s a heretic - she has denounced Articles Of The Faith in public.
You are being silly. She has said she would vote against equal rights, others have said they will vote against her as SNP leader. Is it unacceptable to attack homophobia now?
No. Just that I find the transference of religion methodology interesting.
Not sure what you mean. This is the tweet we are discussing quoted above:
"We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one."
Seems a perfectly reasonable statement that doesn't mention religion, and I don't see any "religion methodology" in it either. What do you find wrong with it?
Forbes is a member of the Free Church of Scotland which is firmly anti homosexual marriage so her religious denomination is relevant given her personal opposition to homosexual marriage
We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
This I find difficult to understand. There was a free vote on the subject, which passed and is now enacted. The candidate isn’t saying she will try and repeal this law, she’s merely saying that she would have voted with her conscience.
Private belief isn’t private anymore.
You must be loyal to the faith, to the bone.
Surprised at the attempts here by people twisting themselves into mental pretzels to try and defend homophobia.
She literally said she would vote against equal rights for people based on their sexual orientation. How is that a matter of "private belief" that should be beyond criticism?
Because as long as she accepted the result, whatever her views, that's democracy.
Just as I was uncomfortable with Rocco Butiglione being vetoed from an EU commission post because of his Catholicism.
They would have been much stronger ground to have vetoed him on the grounds he was an out and out crook.
She’s a heretic - she has denounced Articles Of The Faith in public.
You are being silly. She has said she would vote against equal rights, others have said they will vote against her as SNP leader. Is it unacceptable to attack homophobia now?
You halfwit , she is entitled to her opinion whether you like it or not. The other bigots have option to vote for her or not based on their own bigoted views. Why are you not attacking the muslimcandidate where they stone people are homophobic and almost every other phobia you can think of. You misogynistic nutter.
I definitely condemn any candidate in favour of stoning anyone. Happy? I'm not going to condemn a candidate just because they are a muslim, but if he would vote against equal marriage that is exactly the same bigotry, and I would also find it reasonable for people to say they won't vote for him as leader for that reason.
As I said the other day, she’s far too inexperienced politically. She ought to have bided her time. This early run for the top spot might end up being her only one. Poor judgment or poor advice?
A rare occasion where we completely agree. She’s got obvious talent but she’s far too young and callow. If she wins she risks being William McHague, destroying an excellent career by going for the top job ten years early
The best thing for her is that she withdraws, or quietly loses, and comes back again in a decade
We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
This I find difficult to understand. There was a free vote on the subject, which passed and is now enacted. The candidate isn’t saying she will try and repeal this law, she’s merely saying that she would have voted with her conscience.
Private belief isn’t private anymore.
You must be loyal to the faith, to the bone.
Surprised at the attempts here by people twisting themselves into mental pretzels to try and defend homophobia.
She literally said she would vote against equal rights for people based on their sexual orientation. How is that a matter of "private belief" that should be beyond criticism?
Because as long as she accepted the result, whatever her views, that's democracy.
Just as I was uncomfortable with Rocco Butiglione being vetoed from an EU commission post because of his Catholicism.
They would have been much stronger ground to have vetoed him on the grounds he was an out and out crook.
She isn't being vetoed. Someone has said they don't want her as leader of the SNP because she is against equal rights, seems fair enough. Or does she have a God-given right to be SNP leader?
I suspect that there are members of the EU commission who are Catholic, so doubt that you can be vetoed for being a Catholic though I'm not familiar with the case.
He was asked for his views on homosexuality. His answer was ‘As a Catholic I believe it is a sin, but as I do not treat it as a crime, it would not affect me in this role.’
Which although I am no Catholic seemed fair enough to me.
It caused a media storm and got him rejected though.
And it looks like we’re about to see the same thing here. Remember, it’s only her views, not whether she would apply them, that’s causing the problem.
But surely her views matter to the people voting for her as SNP leader? I really don't get why they shouldn't be
Interesting and persuasive header, Alan - thanks. Are there interim solutions that could be considered short of union - some sort of confederation with NI largely self-governing but with support from both UK and Eire? Do DUP voters prefer government from Westminster to self-government?
The Good Friday Agreement included provision for greater North-South and East-West cooperation. This has largely failed to happen, but the talking shops that currently exist might provide a basis for a bit of useful blurring of boundaries.
However, with Britain out of the EU, Ireland not in NATO, etc, there's not much for them to work on. Transport (dull), migration (due to the Common Travel Area), um, electricity grid development...?
Isn't NI already dependent on the south for its leccy? Not much scope there then?
There is an all-Ireland grid, yes, but there is scope for increased East-West links. Improving East-West cooperation between the Republic and Britain would help to reassure Unionists that Irish Unity wouldn't result in being totally cut off from Britain.
We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
This I find difficult to understand. There was a free vote on the subject, which passed and is now enacted. The candidate isn’t saying she will try and repeal this law, she’s merely saying that she would have voted with her conscience.
Private belief isn’t private anymore.
You must be loyal to the faith, to the bone.
Surprised at the attempts here by people twisting themselves into mental pretzels to try and defend homophobia.
She literally said she would vote against equal rights for people based on their sexual orientation. How is that a matter of "private belief" that should be beyond criticism?
Because as long as she accepted the result, whatever her views, that's democracy.
Just as I was uncomfortable with Rocco Butiglione being vetoed from an EU commission post because of his Catholicism.
They would have been much stronger ground to have vetoed him on the grounds he was an out and out crook.
She’s a heretic - she has denounced Articles Of The Faith in public.
You are being silly. She has said she would vote against equal rights, others have said they will vote against her as SNP leader. Is it unacceptable to attack homophobia now?
You halfwit , she is entitled to her opinion whether you like it or not. The other bigots have option to vote for her or not based on their own bigoted views. Why are you not attacking the muslimcandidate where they stone people are homophobic and almost every other phobia you can think of. You misogynistic nutter.
I definitely condemn any candidate in favour of stoning anyone. Happy? I'm not going to condemn a candidate just because they are a muslim, but if he would vote against equal marriage that is exactly the same bigotry, and I would also find it reasonable for people to say they won't vote for him as leader for that reason.
It's not very complicated.
Yousaf of course conveniently missed the homosexual marriage vote at Holyrood in 2014
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
Invading the Sun is an early ToDo for my UnDictatorship.
The entire DfE will participate in the first human landing there.
As I said the other day, she’s far too inexperienced politically. She ought to have bided her time. This early run for the top spot might end up being her only one. Poor judgment or poor advice?
I’d suggest being a faithful member of a congregation (regardless of which faith) hasn’t helped. To some extent it becomes your world and it may cause problems when having to imagine how the much wider world thinks.
As I’ve bored on about previously, Hebridean Christians are some of the kindest and most decent people I’ve met, but I’d fear for them in the hard knocks world of politics (and tbh wouldn’t want them making decisions on wider social policy).
I guess the likes of John Redwood will argue this means tax cuts are affordable.
The UK government recorded a surprise surplus in its finances in January despite "substantial spending" to help households with energy bills and one-off payments to the EU.
The government spent less than it received in tax in the month, resulting in a surplus of £5.4bn.
Economists had forecast borrowing of £7.9bn, but record self-assessed income tax receipts led to the surplus.
The figures come as the government is set to deliver its Budget next month.
It means the economy probably grew a fair bit more than has been currently recorded by the ONS. Expect upwards revisions to 2022 GDP over the next few months.
The chance of a recession now seems remote and 2023 should have reasonable growth as we see inflation recede and incomes catch up. I think we can now start pencilling in somewhere between 0.7-0.9% growth for the whole year with more upside than downside risk due to faster falling inflation than is projected.
We should also start seeing quite significant falls in energy costs in the next few months?
Overall 2023 isn't shaping up too badly at all (as long as there's no escalation with Russia's in-going invasion of Ukraine)
Martin Lewis was on the radio last night saying he'd written to the chancellor asking him to delay ending the price cap until the next review in June/July as the prices look like they will come down quite a bit. Rather than letting them go way up for three months then way down again.
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
You need to read up on things like the Bengal Famine or the South African concentration camps.
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
As was suggested above, America is very likely to throw in a big pile of cash should unification ever happen. And you can expect a vast number of Irish Americans to want to come and visit their newly reunited homeland.
Hell why not go all the way. Make Ireland the 51st State.
As the Republic of Ireland is firmly in the EU, including the Eurozone
There was a book, by a Guardian journalist, many years back. Title was "The 51st state".
UK accidentally BREXITs due to a vote against yet another (of dozens) of EU treaties. UK doesn't do well. American President makes offer. This includes England as 51st state, Scotland as 52nd, Wales as 53rd, Ni as 54th and an offer to the South as 55....
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
No. British/English behaviour in Ireland is not ameliorated by the fact we have emerged as a democracy in the last 100 years. To imply, as you do, we have some clean hands is putting your head in the sand. How many Irish people have dies as a result of our occupation of their country? The union with NI is just a continuation of the union with Ireland as a whole, which has caused untold death and suffering.
More recently, if you think Unionist death squads operating with the connivance of the State across the Six Counties is in some way an example of a properly operating free democratic society? Assassinating lawyers because they represented Republicans? The Soviet Union only existed for 70 odd years, our occupation of Ireland, or parts of it, has lasted 800 or more and cost, I would wager, proportionally more lives as a proportion of Ireland's population than the USSR did.
As was suggested above, America is very likely to throw in a big pile of cash should unification ever happen. And you can expect a vast number of Irish Americans to want to come and visit their newly reunited homeland.
Hell why not go all the way. Make Ireland the 51st State.
As the Republic of Ireland is firmly in the EU, including the Eurozone
There was a book, by a Guardian journalist, many years back. Title was "The 51st state".
UK accidentally BREXITs due to a vote against yet another (of dozens) of EU treaties. UK doesn't do well. American President makes offer. This includes England as 51st state, Scotland as 52nd, Wales as 53rd, Ni as 54th and an offer to the South as 55....
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
It's only been going a few minutes and it's a continuous stream of lies, rather like a Trump rally speech.
I still say that there is a virus of stupidity that Trump is the carrier of. How many apparently smart (at least capable of self interest) people have turned to dribbling morons after interacting with him?
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
A successful Union for Northern Ireland might include an economy that isn't a basketcase, a government that functions and where parliamentarians turn up for work and streets where people don't kill each other, as happened for much of the period and even now there is an everpresent threat of violence.
If having all those things is your definition of success we don't have a language in common, let alone a point of view.
The government could use today's relatively good financial news to seek to end the public sector pay disputes through negotiation and compromise. Or, it could bend to the will of some Tories, reverse tax rises and propose tax cuts. I wonder which, if either, Sunak and Hunt will choose?
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
A successful Union for Northern Ireland might include an economy that isn't a basketcase, a government that functions and where parliamentarians turn up for work and streets where people don't kill each other, as happened for much of the period and even now there is an everpresent threat of violence.
If having all those things is your definition of success we don't have a language in common, let alone a point of view.
The people of Northern Ireland voted for the above status. Repeatedly.
Why should some outsiders force economic success and politically amity on them, against their will?
Mr. Eagles, WWII isn't my preferred period but wasn't the Bengal Famine due to a combination of wartime disruption and inflation?
It wasn't a deliberate policy. The UK didn't decide one day that X number had to die. Or impose an agricultural reform for ideological reasons that led to widespread famine. That's not to say criticism might not be fair, but the comparison with Stalin's entirely voluntary genocide and mass incarceration to slave labour camps is, it seems to me, utterly ridiculous.
Even less well-informed on South Africa and concentration camps, but wasn't that pre-WWI (and, therefore, before the Soviet Union existed)? I'm not of the view that clinging to the grievances and glories of strangers who died long ago but shared a flag is a sensible way to approach history, or life. (I don't feel pride at Agincourt or the victory in WWII on the basis it was nothing to do with me, for example).
As for Gandhi, compare how the British Empire ended with others. It was rather more peaceful than it might have been.
The government could use today's relatively good financial news to seek to end the public sector pay disputes through negotiation and compromise. Or, it could bend to the will of some Tories, reverse tax rises and propose tax cuts. I wonder which, if either, Sunak and Hunt will choose?
As pointed out, it is probably an expected spike in tax returns.
What business is it of the Republic what Northern Ireland does. As the polling in the article says, 65% of people in Northern Ireland want to stay in the UK and not join the Republic and their decision is final
All Irishmen and Women in all 32 Counties owe their allegiance to the Irish Republic declared in 1916 and ratified by the All-Ireland electorate in 1918. Those collaborating with the occupation authorities in the North are treasonous fools.
(having lit the blue touchpaper, Doug steps back)
All British people owe their allegiance to the King and United Kingdom. Those who refuse to support their Unionist brothers in Northern Ireland are treasonous fools.
Of course the Republic was originally the Free State, it only became the Republic in 1948 not 1922
Honestly the two of you (although I note Doug said it with his fingers crossed and hyufd responded in the same manner)
Can I just say that I do not owe my allegiance to the King nor the United Kingdom (nor would I owe my allegiance to Ireland if I lived there) nor do I think I would be treasonous. My allegiance has to be earned by either the King or country by doing the right things. Only then can it get my allegiance. It can't get my blind allegiance to do anything it damn well likes.
Putin attacks the the Anglican Church over a gender neutral god, and declares a family is a union between man and woman
So Kate Forbes is going to get Putin’s endorsement.
For someone who isn't gay, hates gays and definitely isn't gay (say that a few more times), Putin is awfully interested in the whole gay thing, isn't he?
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Mr. Eagles, WWII isn't my preferred period but wasn't the Bengal Famine due to a combination of wartime disruption and inflation?
It wasn't a deliberate policy. The UK didn't decide one day that X number had to die. Or impose an agricultural reform for ideological reasons that led to widespread famine. That's not to say criticism might not be fair, but the comparison with Stalin's entirely voluntary genocide and mass incarceration to slave labour camps is, it seems to me, utterly ridiculous.
Even less well-informed on South Africa and concentration camps, but wasn't that pre-WWI (and, therefore, before the Soviet Union existed)? I'm not of the view that clinging to the grievances and glories of strangers who died long ago but shared a flag is a sensible way to approach history, or life. (I don't feel pride at Agincourt or the victory in WWII on the basis it was nothing to do with me, for example).
As for Gandhi, compare how the British Empire ended with others. It was rather more peaceful than it might have been.
On Kate Forbes, I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Her position on gay marriage is quite clear - some will see that as a reason not to vote for her as FM, others won't. I've not seen anybody suggesting that she should resign as an MSP or SNP member because of her views (doubtless there will be a few, but they can be ignored).
So it's democracy, isn't it? Let the SNP members decide - up to them.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
The USSR alone wouldn't have defeated the Nazis. Not least because they started WWII on the same side.
Finally got round to reading Orlando Figues “The Story of Russia” which someone here recommended - a great read, which provides context and explains so much of current behaviour - highly recommended.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
A successful Union for Northern Ireland might include an economy that isn't a basketcase, a government that functions and where parliamentarians turn up for work and streets where people don't kill each other, as happened for much of the period and even now there is an everpresent threat of violence.
If having all those things is your definition of success we don't have a language in common, let alone a point of view.
The people of Northern Ireland voted for the above status. Repeatedly.
Why should some outsiders force economic success and politically amity on them, against their will?
A fair challenge. Purely anecdotally, the Northern Irish I know realise their setup is a basket case, but for various reasons, which differ amongst them, but in many cases relate to the threat of violence I alluded to, choose the status quo in preference to worse.
And edit, and in my view the most important thing. That status quo is changing.
One of my Irish nephews married a girl from the North and we went to the wedding. They put us up just south of the border and bussed us in. They opened the bar specially. "You Catholics like a drink."
We got on well, but there were a worrying nunber of tee-totallers. It must be a Church of Ireland thing. I'm not surprised by the polling, though.
Putin attacks the the Anglican Church over a gender neutral god, and declares a family is a union between man and woman
So Kate Forbes is going to get Putin’s endorsement.
For someone who isn't gay, hates gays and definitely isn't gay (say that a few more times), Putin is awfully interested in the whole gay thing, isn't he?
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
The USSR alone wouldn't have defeated the Nazis. Not least because they started WWII on the same side.
Not to mention the key technologies provided by the West. While small in terms of Russia's GDP, these were things that Russia didn't have or was unable to make.
Things like effective, small radios for aircraft and tanks. Or ultra-high octane aviation fuel - 100% of which came from outside Russia.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
Now talk about the union from the perspective of the "and Northern Ireland" part. Decades of murder, torture and terrorism. Followed by a peace which was fragile enough to be seriously threatened by the next generation of bowler-hatted twats who are using Brexit as their big opportunity to impose a hard border with the south.
The Union in its current form - where NI is an unwanted appendage treated with disdain by Great Britain and as "Our Way or Death" by local nutters of various Christian sects - has hardly been a huge success. Well, maybe for undertakers.
hmmm
try looking at the numbers instead of the agitprop
which of these has killed more Irish Catholics since 1960 ?
1. The forces of the Crown 2. Republican Paramilitaries 3. A laundry in Tuam
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
If the Wehrmacht was so important why was relatively so little expended on it?
Normally, one thinks of the German Army (with the Waffen SS) as the dominant military arms of the Nazi state. This is a mistake. German ground forces received on average about one-third of German munitions output (O’Brien 2015, 19-33). Major ground weapons systems such as the famous Panzers were a small part, usually closer to 5% than 10%, of total output. Tanks were dwarfed by equipment for the Luftwaffe. Throughout the war, the building and arming of aircraft took up half of German munitions output or more. Beyond this, the supply of anti-aircraft artillery (flak) took up a growing percentage of German output—reaching over 10% in the last year of the war.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Rubbish. One plane, carrying one bomb, could have defeated the Nazis. The US/allied nuclear weapons program was originally going to target Germany - it's just that country collapsed before it could be used on them.
Besides, these sorts of arguments ignore several facts, such as the massive help lend-lease was to the Russians.
The war was won because the allies fought the Axis powers together; it is incredibly hard to split out what would have happened if one, or more, allied powers had not been in the war. For instance, if Britain had sued for peace in 1940, how would the US have fared against Japan and Germany?
The government could use today's relatively good financial news to seek to end the public sector pay disputes through negotiation and compromise. Or, it could bend to the will of some Tories, reverse tax rises and propose tax cuts. I wonder which, if either, Sunak and Hunt will choose?
As pointed out, it is probably an expected spike in tax returns.
Partly that and partly that energy bills didn't spike as high as was feared. But that does give Sunak and Hunt a bit of a choice, and it will be revealing what they choose. Much harder to squeeze public sector pay if it looks like there is some money left.
Putin attacks the the Anglican Church over a gender neutral god, and declares a family is a union between man and woman
So Kate Forbes is going to get Putin’s endorsement.
For someone who isn't gay, hates gays and definitely isn't gay (say that a few more times), Putin is awfully interested in the whole gay thing, isn't he?
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
The USSR alone wouldn't have defeated the Nazis. Not least because they started WWII on the same side.
Not to mention the key technologies provided by the West. While small in terms of Russia's GDP, these were things that Russia didn't have or was unable to make.
Things like effective, small radios for aircraft and tanks. Or ultra-high octane aviation fuel - 100% of which came from outside Russia.
Thankfully, a similar list exists today. Military-grade electronics, avionics, small rocket motors etc.
We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
A pity. Clearly some religious beliefs are less acceptable than others these days.
By saying she would prevent gay marriage if she had been able to she stepped over the line by seeking to impose her religious beliefs on everyone else.
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
You need to read up on things like the Bengal Famine or the South African concentration camps.
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
Your hero Gandhi was a thoroughgoing racist
‘In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."’
Forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
Gandhi collected works, volume 1: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ pp. 409-410
‘I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.’
One of my Irish nephews married a girl from the North and we went to the wedding. They put us up just south of the border and bussed us in. They opened the bar specially. "You Catholics like a drink."
We got on well, but there were a worrying nunber of tee-totallers. It must be a Church of Ireland thing. I'm not surprised by the polling, though.
Presbyterian thing. Church of Ireland is more high church Anglican
I guess the likes of John Redwood will argue this means tax cuts are affordable.
The UK government recorded a surprise surplus in its finances in January despite "substantial spending" to help households with energy bills and one-off payments to the EU.
The government spent less than it received in tax in the month, resulting in a surplus of £5.4bn.
Economists had forecast borrowing of £7.9bn, but record self-assessed income tax receipts led to the surplus.
The figures come as the government is set to deliver its Budget next month.
It means the economy probably grew a fair bit more than has been currently recorded by the ONS. Expect upwards revisions to 2022 GDP over the next few months.
The chance of a recession now seems remote and 2023 should have reasonable growth as we see inflation recede and incomes catch up. I think we can now start pencilling in somewhere between 0.7-0.9% growth for the whole year with more upside than downside risk due to faster falling inflation than is projected.
The surplus is simply because the gas bill is a lot less than forecast, as I have been pointing out for some time. But anyone who thinks that the figures in the year to date are “good” in any objective way or even sustainable is delusional. There is no money for tax cuts. There may be some money to buy off public sector unions and end some of the strikes.
The main reason for higher than expected tax receipts appears to be a higher than predicted inflation rate. As tax thresholds are frozen, more people are pushed into higher tax bands allowing the government to rake in more.
Here’s a record of how MSPs voted on #gaymarriage in 2014. Neither Kate nor Ash were MSPs. Humza abstained. The policy was championed by @AlexSalmond. I wasn’t in elected politics then but as an out lesbian I supported the campaign.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Rubbish. One plane, carrying one bomb, could have defeated the Nazis. The US/allied nuclear weapons program was originally going to target Germany - it's just that country collapsed before it could be used on them.
Besides, these sorts of arguments ignore several facts, such as the massive help lend-lease was to the Russians.
The war was won because the allies fought the Axis powers together; it is incredibly hard to split out what would have happened if one, or more, allied powers had not been in the war. For instance, if Britain had sued for peace in 1940, how would the US have fared against Japan and Germany?
To win World War Two, three things were needed
The British provided the time The Russians provided the men The Americans provided the money
All three were needed. These three countries won the war against Hitler
I guess the likes of John Redwood will argue this means tax cuts are affordable.
The UK government recorded a surprise surplus in its finances in January despite "substantial spending" to help households with energy bills and one-off payments to the EU.
The government spent less than it received in tax in the month, resulting in a surplus of £5.4bn.
Economists had forecast borrowing of £7.9bn, but record self-assessed income tax receipts led to the surplus.
The figures come as the government is set to deliver its Budget next month.
It means the economy probably grew a fair bit more than has been currently recorded by the ONS. Expect upwards revisions to 2022 GDP over the next few months.
The chance of a recession now seems remote and 2023 should have reasonable growth as we see inflation recede and incomes catch up. I think we can now start pencilling in somewhere between 0.7-0.9% growth for the whole year with more upside than downside risk due to faster falling inflation than is projected.
The surplus is simply because the gas bill is a lot less than forecast, as I have been pointing out for some time. But anyone who thinks that the figures in the year to date are “good” in any objective way or even sustainable is delusional. There is no money for tax cuts. There may be some money to buy off public sector unions and end some of the strikes.
The main reason for higher than expected tax receipts appears to be a higher than predicted inflation rate. As tax thresholds are frozen, more people are pushed into higher tax bands allowing the government to rake in more.
Just a point - aren't these the receipts from the tax year ending in April 22 ?
We must be full throated in our support of equal marriage. No if or buts. I won’t be supporting Kate’s campaign on that basis. I wish her well- she’s extremely talented. But I have red lines. And this is one.
A pity. Clearly some religious beliefs are less acceptable than others these days.
By saying she would prevent gay marriage if she had been able to she stepped over the line by seeking to impose her religious beliefs on everyone else.
Looks like she’s blown it. Hard to walk back from her statement
That makes Yousaf firm favorite (I just checked the odds - he is)
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
What business is it of the Republic what Northern Ireland does. As the polling in the article says, 65% of people in Northern Ireland want to stay in the UK and not join the Republic and their decision is final
All Irishmen and Women in all 32 Counties owe their allegiance to the Irish Republic declared in 1916 and ratified by the All-Ireland electorate in 1918. Those collaborating with the occupation authorities in the North are treasonous fools.
I guess the likes of John Redwood will argue this means tax cuts are affordable.
The UK government recorded a surprise surplus in its finances in January despite "substantial spending" to help households with energy bills and one-off payments to the EU.
The government spent less than it received in tax in the month, resulting in a surplus of £5.4bn.
Economists had forecast borrowing of £7.9bn, but record self-assessed income tax receipts led to the surplus.
The figures come as the government is set to deliver its Budget next month.
It means the economy probably grew a fair bit more than has been currently recorded by the ONS. Expect upwards revisions to 2022 GDP over the next few months.
The chance of a recession now seems remote and 2023 should have reasonable growth as we see inflation recede and incomes catch up. I think we can now start pencilling in somewhere between 0.7-0.9% growth for the whole year with more upside than downside risk due to faster falling inflation than is projected.
The surplus is simply because the gas bill is a lot less than forecast, as I have been pointing out for some time. But anyone who thinks that the figures in the year to date are “good” in any objective way or even sustainable is delusional. There is no money for tax cuts. There may be some money to buy off public sector unions and end some of the strikes.
The main reason for higher than expected tax receipts appears to be a higher than predicted inflation rate. As tax thresholds are frozen, more people are pushed into higher tax bands allowing the government to rake in more.
Good old fiscal drag. The tax rise that isn’t a tax rise.
As was suggested above, America is very likely to throw in a big pile of cash should unification ever happen. And you can expect a vast number of Irish Americans to want to come and visit their newly reunited homeland.
Hell why not go all the way. Make Ireland the 51st State.
I think the likelihood of the US doing so is vanishingly remote.
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
You need to read up on things like the Bengal Famine or the South African concentration camps.
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
Your hero Gandhi was a thoroughgoing racist
‘In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."’
Forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
Gandhi collected works, volume 1: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ pp. 409-410
‘I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.’
And many, many more
My eldest daughter is by-the-book-woke - Gandhi is cancelled, apparently.
I guess the likes of John Redwood will argue this means tax cuts are affordable.
The UK government recorded a surprise surplus in its finances in January despite "substantial spending" to help households with energy bills and one-off payments to the EU.
The government spent less than it received in tax in the month, resulting in a surplus of £5.4bn.
Economists had forecast borrowing of £7.9bn, but record self-assessed income tax receipts led to the surplus.
The figures come as the government is set to deliver its Budget next month.
It means the economy probably grew a fair bit more than has been currently recorded by the ONS. Expect upwards revisions to 2022 GDP over the next few months.
The chance of a recession now seems remote and 2023 should have reasonable growth as we see inflation recede and incomes catch up. I think we can now start pencilling in somewhere between 0.7-0.9% growth for the whole year with more upside than downside risk due to faster falling inflation than is projected.
The surplus is simply because the gas bill is a lot less than forecast, as I have been pointing out for some time. But anyone who thinks that the figures in the year to date are “good” in any objective way or even sustainable is delusional. There is no money for tax cuts. There may be some money to buy off public sector unions and end some of the strikes.
The main reason for higher than expected tax receipts appears to be a higher than predicted inflation rate. As tax thresholds are frozen, more people are pushed into higher tax bands allowing the government to rake in more.
Good old fiscal drag. The tax rise that isn’t a tax rise.
Ah, yes, people who get a pay rise have to pay more tax.
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Rubbish. One plane, carrying one bomb, could have defeated the Nazis. The US/allied nuclear weapons program was originally going to target Germany - it's just that country collapsed before it could be used on them.
Besides, these sorts of arguments ignore several facts, such as the massive help lend-lease was to the Russians.
The war was won because the allies fought the Axis powers together; it is incredibly hard to split out what would have happened if one, or more, allied powers had not been in the war. For instance, if Britain had sued for peace in 1940, how would the US have fared against Japan and Germany?
To win World War Two, three things were needed
The British provided the time The Russians provided the men The Americans provided the money
All three were needed. These three countries won the war against Hitler
Poor old Ukraine, airbrushed from history yet again.
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
No. British/English behaviour in Ireland is not ameliorated by the fact we have emerged as a democracy in the last 100 years. To imply, as you do, we have some clean hands is putting your head in the sand. How many Irish people have dies as a result of our occupation of their country? The union with NI is just a continuation of the union with Ireland as a whole, which has caused untold death and suffering.
More recently, if you think Unionist death squads operating with the connivance of the State across the Six Counties is in some way an example of a properly operating free democratic society? Assassinating lawyers because they represented Republicans? The Soviet Union only existed for 70 odd years, our occupation of Ireland, or parts of it, has lasted 800 or more and cost, I would wager, proportionally more lives as a proportion of Ireland's population than the USSR did.
Strange that you should overlook the deeds of Republican death squads.
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
Putin seemed decidedly low energy. I’m not sure he’s feeling particularly confident in his own abilities anymore.
On his own journey from Lancaster house and crushing the saboteurs via chequers and malthouse compromises to indicative votes and finally defenestration.
He even has the global version of the DUP propping him up by sending Shahed drones.
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Rubbish. One plane, carrying one bomb, could have defeated the Nazis. The US/allied nuclear weapons program was originally going to target Germany - it's just that country collapsed before it could be used on them.
Besides, these sorts of arguments ignore several facts, such as the massive help lend-lease was to the Russians.
The war was won because the allies fought the Axis powers together; it is incredibly hard to split out what would have happened if one, or more, allied powers had not been in the war. For instance, if Britain had sued for peace in 1940, how would the US have fared against Japan and Germany?
To win World War Two, three things were needed
The British provided the time The Russians provided the men The Americans provided the money
All three were needed. These three countries won the war against Hitler
I guess the likes of John Redwood will argue this means tax cuts are affordable.
The UK government recorded a surprise surplus in its finances in January despite "substantial spending" to help households with energy bills and one-off payments to the EU.
The government spent less than it received in tax in the month, resulting in a surplus of £5.4bn.
Economists had forecast borrowing of £7.9bn, but record self-assessed income tax receipts led to the surplus.
The figures come as the government is set to deliver its Budget next month.
It means the economy probably grew a fair bit more than has been currently recorded by the ONS. Expect upwards revisions to 2022 GDP over the next few months.
The chance of a recession now seems remote and 2023 should have reasonable growth as we see inflation recede and incomes catch up. I think we can now start pencilling in somewhere between 0.7-0.9% growth for the whole year with more upside than downside risk due to faster falling inflation than is projected.
The surplus is simply because the gas bill is a lot less than forecast, as I have been pointing out for some time. But anyone who thinks that the figures in the year to date are “good” in any objective way or even sustainable is delusional. There is no money for tax cuts. There may be some money to buy off public sector unions and end some of the strikes.
The main reason for higher than expected tax receipts appears to be a higher than predicted inflation rate. As tax thresholds are frozen, more people are pushed into higher tax bands allowing the government to rake in more.
Just a point - aren't these the receipts from the tax year ending in April 22 ?
I think it's this January's receipts, but on thresholds set in 2021? Presumably means the fiscal lag will continue into next year...
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
A successful Union for Northern Ireland might include an economy that isn't a basketcase, a government that functions and where parliamentarians turn up for work and streets where people don't kill each other, as happened for much of the period and even now there is an everpresent threat of violence.
If having all those things is your definition of success we don't have a language in common, let alone a point of view.
The people of Northern Ireland voted for the above status. Repeatedly.
Why should some outsiders force economic success and politically amity on them, against their will?
A fair challenge. Purely anecdotally, the Northern Irish I know realise their setup is a basket case, but for various reasons, which differ amongst them, but in many cases relate to the threat of violence I alluded to, choose the status quo in preference to worse.
And edit, and in my view the most important thing. That status quo is changing.
As one poster said a couple of days ago, if you train leapords to eat faces, you end up with face-eating leapords.
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
Very interesting piece, @Alanbrooke. Welcome back!
I suspect the Union won't end in a vote but will come to be seen as an increasing irrelevance. The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success and as part of the EU Single Market and increasingly Irish and EU passport holders, people will be looking South more than East. Which would be a relatively benign result, if it happens.
“The Union in its current form has hardly been a huge success”
Since Irish independence this doddery old Union managed to defeat the Nazis (no thanks to the Irish) and helped to defeat communism. It has been democratic throughout, has yielded the world’s biggest empire with notable peacefulness (cf France, Spain, Portugal), it has delivered rising prosperity to its people and is now, through its culture, language, media, science, universities, one of the great soft powers of the world
What else should this rainy archipelago off north west Europe have done, for it to count as a success in your eyes? Conquer the moon? Invade the sun?
The Soviets did far far more than us to defeat the Nazis,
No they didn’t. They may have lost more lives but were allies of the Nazis while Britain fought on “alone” (sic).
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
O'Brien's attempt was comprehensively deconstructed by Mark Harrison's paper in the JSS - I'm surprised it's still being referred to. 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht was in the Eastern front during WW2 while 20-25 percent was serving in the Western front. Airpower alone could not have defeated the Nazis.
Rubbish. One plane, carrying one bomb, could have defeated the Nazis. The US/allied nuclear weapons program was originally going to target Germany - it's just that country collapsed before it could be used on them.
Besides, these sorts of arguments ignore several facts, such as the massive help lend-lease was to the Russians.
The war was won because the allies fought the Axis powers together; it is incredibly hard to split out what would have happened if one, or more, allied powers had not been in the war. For instance, if Britain had sued for peace in 1940, how would the US have fared against Japan and Germany?
To win World War Two, three things were needed
The British provided the time The Russians provided the men The Americans provided the money
All three were needed. These three countries won the war against Hitler
Agreed. All three were indispensable.
There was also the issue of technology. Both the UK and US proved to be far superior to Germany ( and others) in developing technical ideas into usable weapons.
Rather than trying to build Mach 2 aircraft powered by coal dust.
Mr. Seal, you think the UK is 'marginally less benighted' than the Soviet Union, which had quotas for genocide and incarcerated to slave labour camps 20 million or so people?
Methinks thou art a sausage most silly.
You need to read up on things like the Bengal Famine or the South African concentration camps.
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
Your hero Gandhi was a thoroughgoing racist
‘In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."’
Forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
Gandhi collected works, volume 1: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ pp. 409-410
‘I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.’
And many, many more
My eldest daughter is by-the-book-woke - Gandhi is cancelled, apparently.
The younger argues that he did good and bad.
I’m about as unwoke as it gets, and even I find Gandhi quite problematic. He was without question an avowed racist in his youth - but perhaps that can be forgiven, it was a different time, some say his views evolved, ok ok
But then you have the whole sleeping-with-his naked-teenage-nieces thing, when he was an old man.
This is what happens when you sanctify people. No one is a saint. It gets messy
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
Comments
Chicken soup, a nice steak and black forest gateau for me
Sadly if he goes there could be even worse taking his place .
It's not very complicated.
The best thing for her is that she withdraws, or quietly loses, and comes back again in a decade
The entire DfE will participate in the first human landing there.
As I’ve bored on about previously, Hebridean Christians are some of the kindest and most decent people I’ve met, but I’d fear for them in the hard knocks world of politics (and tbh wouldn’t want them making decisions on wider social policy).
Look at how many times peace loving Gandhi was arrested for wanting to take back control from his unelected rulers.
UK accidentally BREXITs due to a vote against yet another (of dozens) of EU treaties. UK doesn't do well. American President makes offer. This includes England as 51st state, Scotland as 52nd, Wales as 53rd, Ni as 54th and an offer to the South as 55....
More recently, if you think Unionist death squads operating with the connivance of the State across the Six Counties is in some way an example of a properly operating free democratic society? Assassinating lawyers because they represented Republicans? The Soviet Union only existed for 70 odd years, our occupation of Ireland, or parts of it, has lasted 800 or more and cost, I would wager, proportionally more lives as a proportion of Ireland's population than the USSR did.
After their former allies attacked them Britain and the US armed them and it was British and American AirPower that ground German war production into the dust. The Luftwaffe barely bothered with the Eastern Front because the greatest threat to Germany was coming from the West.
After Germany lost the Battle of the Atlantic the war was over for them - only a matter of when, not if. I recommend Philips P. O’Brien’s “How the war was won”.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/how-war-was-won
Does he transmit some kind of mental BLIT?
If having all those things is your definition of success we don't have a language in common, let alone a point of view.
Why should some outsiders force economic success and politically amity on them, against their will?
It wasn't a deliberate policy. The UK didn't decide one day that X number had to die. Or impose an agricultural reform for ideological reasons that led to widespread famine. That's not to say criticism might not be fair, but the comparison with Stalin's entirely voluntary genocide and mass incarceration to slave labour camps is, it seems to me, utterly ridiculous.
Even less well-informed on South Africa and concentration camps, but wasn't that pre-WWI (and, therefore, before the Soviet Union existed)? I'm not of the view that clinging to the grievances and glories of strangers who died long ago but shared a flag is a sensible way to approach history, or life. (I don't feel pride at Agincourt or the victory in WWII on the basis it was nothing to do with me, for example).
As for Gandhi, compare how the British Empire ended with others. It was rather more peaceful than it might have been.
Can I just say that I do not owe my allegiance to the King nor the United Kingdom (nor would I owe my allegiance to Ireland if I lived there) nor do I think I would be treasonous. My allegiance has to be earned by either the King or country by doing the right things. Only then can it get my allegiance. It can't get my blind allegiance to do anything it damn well likes.
What are you smoking?
So it's democracy, isn't it? Let the SNP members decide - up to them.
And edit, and in my view the most important thing. That status quo is changing.
But he's sound on the no gays thing, if that floats your boat.
They put us up just south of the border and bussed us in. They opened the bar specially. "You Catholics like a drink."
We got on well, but there were a worrying nunber of tee-totallers. It must be a Church of Ireland thing. I'm not surprised by the polling, though.
He’s camper than a row of pink tents.
Things like effective, small radios for aircraft and tanks. Or ultra-high octane aviation fuel - 100% of which came from outside Russia.
Was cheaper than the bus even with capped fares.
Which is slightly bizarre but I’m not complaining.
*From Saxilby, that is.
try looking at the numbers instead of the agitprop
which of these has killed more Irish Catholics since 1960 ?
1. The forces of the Crown
2. Republican Paramilitaries
3. A laundry in Tuam
Normally, one thinks of the German Army (with the Waffen SS) as the dominant military arms of the Nazi state. This is a mistake. German ground forces received on average about one-third of German munitions output (O’Brien 2015, 19-33). Major ground weapons systems such as the famous Panzers were a small part, usually closer to 5% than 10%, of total output. Tanks were dwarfed by equipment for the Luftwaffe. Throughout the war, the building and arming of aircraft took up half of German munitions output or more. Beyond this, the supply of anti-aircraft artillery (flak) took up a growing percentage of German output—reaching over 10% in the last year of the war.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/how-war-was-won
Besides, these sorts of arguments ignore several facts, such as the massive help lend-lease was to the Russians.
The war was won because the allies fought the Axis powers together; it is incredibly hard to split out what would have happened if one, or more, allied powers had not been in the war. For instance, if Britain had sued for peace in 1940, how would the US have fared against Japan and Germany?
As did the Confederacy.
Aggressors saying ‘it was all the victims’ fault’ is nothing new. Doesn’t just apply to war either.
‘In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."’
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766083651/gandhi-is-deeply-revered-but-his-attitudes-on-race-and-sex-are-under-scrutiny
Forced to share a cell with black people, Gandhi wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."
Gandhi collected works, volume 1: “Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ pp. 409-410
‘I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life.’
And many, many more
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627962973971968001?s=20
Interestingly it was a free vote - with support and opposition from all sides.
The British provided the time
The Russians provided the men
The Americans provided the money
All three were needed. These three countries won the war against Hitler
That makes Yousaf firm favorite (I just checked the odds - he is)
Are they really going to make Humza ‘WHITE’ Yousaf the leader?! Really??
Grab some 🍿, @Amtrak.
Danger: long 🧵 ahead.
I also want to apologize for breaking our OTP (On Time Performance) yesterday. We had to delay some of our trains to give a way to #RailForceOne. It was painful for me and my team, but I had to do that. So only 90% of our trains arrived on time yesterday. I apologize
https://twitter.com/AKamyshin/status/1627957257408286720?s=20
The younger argues that he did good and bad.
https://twitter.com/alexofbrown/status/1627748904363036674?s=61&t=HRshFywqCmDaoPtadO_KCw
The UK's trains are terrible, time for nationalisation. Privatisation has failed.
On his own journey from Lancaster house and crushing the saboteurs via chequers and malthouse compromises to indicative votes and finally defenestration.
He even has the global version of the DUP propping him up by sending Shahed drones.
@BBCr4today
asking “are we saying high office is barred to people of faith?”
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1627953251223015424
Is she trying to tank?
See here: https://twitter.com/andyverity/status/1627940405693095936
Rather than trying to build Mach 2 aircraft powered by coal dust.
But then you have the whole sleeping-with-his naked-teenage-nieces thing, when he was an old man.
This is what happens when you sanctify people. No one is a saint. It gets messy