Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
I'm sure we are all up to speed with the State of Florida trying to remove "run yourself as a mini fiefdom" powers from Disney.
It seems they have involved King Charles as a blocking tactic - a thing called a Royal Clause.
Why did Disney invoke King Charles III? What is a 'royal clause'?
Some areas have rules against contracts that last forever, and since the late 17th century "royal clauses" have been used in contracts to establish an end date that likely will never arrive. The British royal family is used since information about them and their bloodlines is readily available. Royal clauses are most often used in the UK, not the U.S.
Disney and the Reedy Creek District declared the agreement effective immediately and in perpetuity. If the agreement violates any rules against perpetuity, the contract is in effect "until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration."
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
Started with Bliar, I think.
Richard Cromwell was known as Queen Dick.....
Also Thatcher milk snatcher, paddy pantsdown, harriet harperson etc. So not that recent.
I had entirely forgotten about 'pantsdown'. And indeed paddy. And the libdems. Like most voters.
The thing is about these names is they stick. You only have to come across the name again years later and its there in your head. I always remember Paddy Pantsdown as he portrayed himself as a no nonsense ex Army Guy.. they you find he is just as fallible as the next person. Not sure how his name came about. I'd hazard a guess at the Sun.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
Started with Bliar, I think.
Richard Cromwell was known as Queen Dick.....
Also Thatcher milk snatcher, paddy pantsdown, harriet harperson etc. So not that recent.
I had entirely forgotten about 'pantsdown'. And indeed paddy. And the libdems. Like most voters.
Pantsdown. Cleggover.
These LD leaders certainly put it about liberally.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
Started with Bliar, I think.
Richard Cromwell was known as Queen Dick.....
Also Thatcher milk snatcher, paddy pantsdown, harriet harperson etc. So not that recent.
I had entirely forgotten about 'pantsdown'. And indeed paddy. And the libdems. Like most voters.
The thing is about these names is they stick. You only have to come across the name again years later and its there in your head. I always remember Paddy Pantsdown as he portrayed himself as a no nonsense ex Army Guy.. they you find he is just as fallible as the next person. Not sure how his name came about. I'd hazard a guess at the Sun.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
I'm sure we are all up to speed with the State of Florida trying to remove "run yourself as a mini fiefdom" powers from Disney.
It seems they have involved King Charles as a blocking tactic - a thing called a Royal Clause.
Why did Disney invoke King Charles III? What is a 'royal clause'?
Some areas have rules against contracts that last forever, and since the late 17th century "royal clauses" have been used in contracts to establish an end date that likely will never arrive. The British royal family is used since information about them and their bloodlines is readily available. Royal clauses are most often used in the UK, not the U.S.
Disney and the Reedy Creek District declared the agreement effective immediately and in perpetuity. If the agreement violates any rules against perpetuity, the contract is in effect "until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration."
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
DavidL. I see you are claiming the Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh has been struck off. I doubt that is true, though I would be willing to review your evidence. If she has not been struck off, then yours is a "brave" comment :-)
‘‘Twas only 10 days ago he was suggesting that Mi-Voice might be complicit in a corrupted electoral process. DavidL as the Giuliani of Unionism is an unexpected development.
Mi-Voice seems to be a set of tools to run elections/polls rather than a company that takes responsibility for the electoral probity of those who use its tools. It is clear that they offer a dashboard to view voting - suggesting that SNP insiders may have used the dashboard has nothing to do with Mi-voice.
Afaik Mi-Voice was entirely responsible for sending out ballot papers, online ballots papers and the counting. In that context what would you say 'an independent body needs to audit and vouch for the ballots sent out and an independent body needs to do the counting' implies?
I did enjoy the instant pivot from those saying there was going to be a massive over counting of votes compared to the membership, to 'look, only 69.9% of the membership voted' (considerably higher than the turnout for the leadership election that selected Starmer as it happens).
I'd say it implies distrust of the SNP party hierarchy who were the client hiring the apparatus of Mi-Voice. Peter Murrell etc.
A Conservative Unionist distrusting the SNP party hierarchy? Well I never.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Milk Snatcher for Thatcher?
Herr Brickendrop for Joachim von Ribbentrop?
Longshanks? Æthelred the Unready (note alliteration)?
The latter is a very good example of an ancient punning insult, using a name
Aethelred the Unready literally means "King Well-Advised the Badly Advised"
So the idea that Bliar or "Remoaners" or Yousless are silly new confections is CULLIONS
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
Does 'England' officially exist as a sole legal entity?
Certainly it doesn't exist as a kingdom, so he can't be king of it.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
The CalMac ferry crisis is going to get even worse in the short term, and its doing severe damage to the Islands economy as well as having a huge impact on the day to day lives of the Islanders. I am not joking, I can see the Royal Navy having to step in at some stage...
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Nowhere, judging by the current state of them. That's the problem!
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
Does 'England' officially exist as a sole legal entity?
Certainly it doesn't exist as a kingdom, so he can't be king of it.
Yes, but he is King of Leicester and King of Middle Wallop too for that matter. Not in his titles, but he is King of us, whether we like it or not.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
Does 'England' officially exist as a sole legal entity?
Certainly it doesn't exist as a kingdom, so he can't be king of it.
It does. It's the bit ruled by the Tory Party 100% with English law applying. As opposed to Scots law, Welsh, NI.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
The CalMac ferry crisis is going to get even worse in the short term, and its doing severe damage to the Islands economy as well as having a huge impact on the day to day lives of the Islanders. I am not joking, I can see the Royal Navy having to step in at some stage...
You are NOT alone.
Here in the great Pacific Northwest, ferries and their tribulations are a HUGE issue for both State of Washington, which operates a large ferry system, and Province of British Columbia, which has even bigger network, with larger boats and more passengers (and cars).
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
It's still not anywhere close to being accurate. It's the United Kingdom, not united Kingdoms, he isn't king of England, Scotland, Wales and the other one separately. If he were, it would list it separately like it does for Commonwealth Realms
He's a King in England, and including England, not of England (not until Sindy anyway)
It'd take 5 seconds to google official terminology unless there's some obscure legal reason to use an archaic term. lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63812/supplement/A2
Of course, the whole thing appears to just be legal comedy to frustrate Desantis, so also no doubt they don't care and why the heck would they?
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
I get the impression you've never done maths. All that averages and means and medians stuff. And now someone ought to take you by the hand and explain about rounding errors, margins of error, and so on.
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
It;'s clearly a sub-sample but the first poll post-Yousless-leader-win will be genuinely fascinating
It could indicate the future of the SNP (and indy) for the next 5-10 years
If the Nats are still dominant then it means they can survive the most severe turbulence and a pretty crap new leader. Indy gives them a 40+ base, and that's it. Which means indy will return within a decade as a threat. If they start dipping below 40 then the entire concept of Sindy could be in jeopardy
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
The CalMac ferry crisis is going to get even worse in the short term, and its doing severe damage to the Islands economy as well as having a huge impact on the day to day lives of the Islanders. I am not joking, I can see the Royal Navy having to step in at some stage...
One of the Red Funnel line to the IoW is out of action too over Easter. They struggle to get crew for them, but this time it is mechanical.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Anyone know how good his German actually was? Still a good effort regardless, but just curious if it was one of those occasions where native speakers were wincing through it.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
It's still not anywhere close to being accurate. It's the United Kingdom, not united Kingdoms, he isn't king of England, Scotland, Wales and the other one separately. If he were, it would list it separately like it does for Commonwealth Realms
He's a King in England, and including England, not of England (not until Sindy anyway)
It'd take 5 seconds to google official terminology unless there's some obscure legal reason to use an archaic term. lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63812/supplement/A2
Of course, the whole thing appears to just be legal comedy to frustrate Desantis, so also no doubt they don't care and why the heck would they?
They could have messed with his head much more by saying 'the last heir of de Santis that his whore didn't abort...'
Don't know whether it would be true, but you wonder, given his vehemence on the subject...
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
I get the impression you've never done maths. All that averages and means and medians stuff. And now someone ought to take you by the hand and explain about rounding errors, margins of error, and so on.
SNP got 4% UK wide in 2019, they are now down to 3% UK wide in both polls out tonight taken after Yousaf became SNP leader and FM. Indeed 3% matches what the SNP got in 2017 when they lost 21 seats in Scotland
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
The CalMac ferry crisis is going to get even worse in the short term, and its doing severe damage to the Islands economy as well as having a huge impact on the day to day lives of the Islanders. I am not joking, I can see the Royal Navy having to step in at some stage...
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Anyone know how good his German actually was? Still a good effort regardless, but just curious if it was one of those occasions where native speakers were wincing through it.
I was wincing, and it’s three decades since I was in Germany.
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
I get the impression you've never done maths. All that averages and means and medians stuff. And now someone ought to take you by the hand and explain about rounding errors, margins of error, and so on.
SNP got 4% UK wide in 2019, they are now down to 3% UK wide in both polls out tonight taken after Yousaf became SNP leader and FM. Indeed 3% matches what the SNP got in 2017 when they lost 21 seats in Scotland
I am as keen as you to see Scottish indy booted into the dustbin of history, but @Carnyx is right. These are mere subsamples. @StuartDickson - so oddly absent of late - got rightly banned for continuously and deceptively citing them
There have been nationwide polls in the last few days when the Nats have SURGED from 4% to 5%. What do you make of that? It means all these polls are meaningless, at this sub-sample and granular level
We will have to patiently wait for a genuine Scotland-only poll by a decent company. My guess is that the Nat support WILL be badly damaged, but that indy will take only a modest dent, if anything. Down a point or two
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
Does 'England' officially exist as a sole legal entity?
Certainly it doesn't exist as a kingdom, so he can't be king of it.
Yes, but he is King of Leicester and King of Middle Wallop too for that matter. Not in his titles, but he is King of us, whether we like it or not.
With royals the difference between being king in a place and king of a place can be significant.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Anyone know how good his German actually was? Still a good effort regardless, but just curious if it was one of those occasions where native speakers were wincing through it.
I was wincing, and it’s three decades since I was in Germany.
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
I get the impression you've never done maths. All that averages and means and medians stuff. And now someone ought to take you by the hand and explain about rounding errors, margins of error, and so on.
SNP got 4% UK wide in 2019, they are now down to 3% UK wide in both polls out tonight taken after Yousaf became SNP leader and FM. Indeed 3% matches what the SNP got in 2017 when they lost 21 seats in Scotland
I am as keen as you to see Scottish indy booted into the dustbin of history, but @Carnyx is right. These are mere subsamples. @StuartDickson - so oddly absent of late - got rightly banned for continuously and deceptively citing them
There have been nationwide polls in the last few days when the Nats have SURGED from 4% to 5%. What do you make of that? It means all these polls are meaningless, at this sub-sample and granular level
We will have to patiently wait for a genuine Scotland-only poll by a decent company. My guess is that the Nat support WILL be badly damaged, but that indy will take only a modest dent, if anything. Down a point or two
But who knows?
If the UK wide polls this week showing the SNP are down are confirmed in the Scotland only polls then the SNP are doomed. The polls you were talking about were for Sturgeon's swansong, the latest polls tonight are the first after Yousaf became FM.
If the next Holyrood elections produce a Unionist majority support for independence is completely irrelevant as there will be no majority in Holyrood to even request an independence referendum, which Starmer as well as Sunak have ruled out for now anyway. Without a strong Westminster SNP presence Starmer can ignore them there too
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
I get the impression you've never done maths. All that averages and means and medians stuff. And now someone ought to take you by the hand and explain about rounding errors, margins of error, and so on.
SNP got 4% UK wide in 2019, they are now down to 3% UK wide in both polls out tonight taken after Yousaf became SNP leader and FM. Indeed 3% matches what the SNP got in 2017 when they lost 21 seats in Scotland
I am as keen as you to see Scottish indy booted into the dustbin of history, but @Carnyx is right. These are mere subsamples. @StuartDickson - so oddly absent of late - got rightly banned for continuously and deceptively citing them
There have been nationwide polls in the last few days when the Nats have SURGED from 4% to 5%. What do you make of that? It means all these polls are meaningless, at this sub-sample and granular level
We will have to patiently wait for a genuine Scotland-only poll by a decent company. My guess is that the Nat support WILL be badly damaged, but that indy will take only a modest dent, if anything. Down a point or two
But who knows?
It's not odd, really, that he's absent, given his - ahem - actions just before his disappearance.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
How very dare you - he's a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg! (cadet branch)
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
The CalMac ferry crisis is going to get even worse in the short term, and its doing severe damage to the Islands economy as well as having a huge impact on the day to day lives of the Islanders. I am not joking, I can see the Royal Navy having to step in at some stage...
One of the Red Funnel line to the IoW is out of action too over Easter. They struggle to get crew for them too.
Highly recommend the BBC Scotland disclosures programme on the ferry procurement scandal, it also looks at the impact the ferry crisis is having across our Island communities.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Anyone know how good his German actually was? Still a good effort regardless, but just curious if it was one of those occasions where native speakers were wincing through it.
I was wincing, and it’s three decades since I was in Germany.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Anyone know how good his German actually was? Still a good effort regardless, but just curious if it was one of those occasions where native speakers were wincing through it.
I was wincing, and it’s three decades since I was in Germany.
Pronunciation or grammar etc? Ashamed to say I’ve let the Duolingo slide but intend to do some on-site courses at the Goethe-Institut in the Autumn.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
Queen Victoria could apparently only speak German for the first few years of her life.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
It's still not anywhere close to being accurate. It's the United Kingdom, not united Kingdoms, he isn't king of England, Scotland, Wales and the other one separately. If he were, it would list it separately like it does for Commonwealth Realms
He's a King in England, and including England, not of England (not until Sindy anyway)
It'd take 5 seconds to google official terminology unless there's some obscure legal reason to use an archaic term. lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63812/supplement/A2
Of course, the whole thing appears to just be legal comedy to frustrate Desantis, so also no doubt they don't care and why the heck would they?
Legal comedy is fair comment, certain re: RDS.
BUT legal comedy worth hundreds of millions, if not more.
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
Wait till you work out the percentage the Cons are down since the 2019 UK general election.
Dinny worry ...The Nits will outdo the Tories in vote share loss.
You’ll make it hard for me to scroll past your imbecilisms if you’re going to keep replying uninvited to my posts.
I never said I wasn't going to respond to you. .we will see how it goes. Leon is right.. its hard to call but the SNP are doing their best to destroy themselves.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
I preferred JFK. At least he didn’t sound like a mediocre GCSE student.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
It's still not anywhere close to being accurate. It's the United Kingdom, not united Kingdoms, he isn't king of England, Scotland, Wales and the other one separately. If he were, it would list it separately like it does for Commonwealth Realms
He's a King in England, and including England, not of England (not until Sindy anyway)
It'd take 5 seconds to google official terminology unless there's some obscure legal reason to use an archaic term. lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63812/supplement/A2
Of course, the whole thing appears to just be legal comedy to frustrate Desantis, so also no doubt they don't care and why the heck would they?
Legal comedy is fair comment, certain re: RDS.
BUT legal comedy worth hundreds of millions, if not more.
All the funnier - the lawyers will be very happy, and that is always important.
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
It’s silly - but goes back to BLiar as I recall
Unfortunately for Humza, the "Useless Yousaf" tag is indelibly attached to him. Several weeks ago, an elderly neighbour, apropos of nothing, referred to "Useless" obviously in the expectation that I would know who she was talking about. Yousaf's bed was made for him well before he got to lie in it and there is very little he can do about it. May well be unfair but that's politics.
Where is Humza going with ferries?
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
The CalMac ferry crisis is going to get even worse in the short term, and its doing severe damage to the Islands economy as well as having a huge impact on the day to day lives of the Islanders. I am not joking, I can see the Royal Navy having to step in at some stage...
One of the Red Funnel line to the IoW is out of action too over Easter. They struggle to get crew for them too.
Highly recommend the BBC Scotland disclosures programme on the ferry procurement scandal, it also looks at the impact the ferry crisis is having across our Island communities.
I lived out on the Western Isles for a while and I think this captures the attachment that people have to CalMac. A lifeline public service which isn't always great.
The one I spent some of my childhood on (MV Hebrides) had a fire recently.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
I get the impression you've never done maths. All that averages and means and medians stuff. And now someone ought to take you by the hand and explain about rounding errors, margins of error, and so on.
SNP got 4% UK wide in 2019, they are now down to 3% UK wide in both polls out tonight taken after Yousaf became SNP leader and FM. Indeed 3% matches what the SNP got in 2017 when they lost 21 seats in Scotland
I am as keen as you to see Scottish indy booted into the dustbin of history, but @Carnyx is right. These are mere subsamples. @StuartDickson - so oddly absent of late - got rightly banned for continuously and deceptively citing them
There have been nationwide polls in the last few days when the Nats have SURGED from 4% to 5%. What do you make of that? It means all these polls are meaningless, at this sub-sample and granular level
We will have to patiently wait for a genuine Scotland-only poll by a decent company. My guess is that the Nat support WILL be badly damaged, but that indy will take only a modest dent, if anything. Down a point or two
But who knows?
It's not odd, really, that he's absent, given his - ahem - actions just before his disappearance.
I am not going to criticise the judgment of the mods, but getting banned for that is certainly strict
@StuartDickson could be an arse, and it was unwise and impolite for him to say that, but he also gave some good insight, was astute on Scottish matters, and offered the odd decent Swedish BBQ recipe. I hope he is soon unbanned and returns
Anyway the Scottish Westminster VI revealed is: SNP 40% Lab 33% Con 16% LD 6%
Electoral Calculus gives the resultant seat distribution as: SNP 36 Lab 16 LD 4 Con 3
Fieldwork 7th-10th March, published 30th March! Why would the pro-secession blog that commissioned the poll apparently sit on the results until 3 weeks after the fieldwork was done, only to publish it now?
The comments from the nat contributers below the line won't make happy reading for Yousless.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
I expect you won't be drawn, but was he quartered there?
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
There is something appealing about its simplicity that gets me (I know it was actually a complex bugger to build).
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
Queen Victoria could apparently only speak German for the first few years of her life.
Ditto Queen Mary, the one who was KCIII's great-granny. And plenty of consorts, and monarchs, before her.
Why they called the great gene pool of the British Monarchy "the German kennels".
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
Queen Victoria could apparently only speak German for the first few years of her life.
Ditto Queen Mary, the one who was KCIII's great-granny. And plenty of consorts, and monarchs, before her.
Why they called the great gene pool of the British Monarchy "the German kennels".
To be fair, most other European royal houses used the same kennels.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
Was he tried and convicted there?! I know it was used for that purpose - Charles the First being the prime example - but Wallace too?
It is arguably the most incredible secular room - a single built space with floor, doors and walls - that I have ever been inside, in terms of mood, story, vibe and Wow
I've been in a few places with even more psychological impact, maybe, but they are all religious - from Hagia Sophia to Durham Cathedral to St Peters Rome &c
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
Ditto Charles I, commenting on behalf of the "true" Tories.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
It's still not anywhere close to being accurate. It's the United Kingdom, not united Kingdoms, he isn't king of England, Scotland, Wales and the other one separately. If he were, it would list it separately like it does for Commonwealth Realms
He's a King in England, and including England, not of England (not until Sindy anyway)
It'd take 5 seconds to google official terminology unless there's some obscure legal reason to use an archaic term. lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63812/supplement/A2
Of course, the whole thing appears to just be legal comedy to frustrate Desantis, so also no doubt they don't care and why the heck would they?
Legal comedy is fair comment, certain re: RDS.
BUT legal comedy worth hundreds of millions, if not more.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
I like when they have royal speeches in there, given Charles I was put on trial in the space.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
It's still not anywhere close to being accurate. It's the United Kingdom, not united Kingdoms, he isn't king of England, Scotland, Wales and the other one separately. If he were, it would list it separately like it does for Commonwealth Realms
He's a King in England, and including England, not of England (not until Sindy anyway)
It'd take 5 seconds to google official terminology unless there's some obscure legal reason to use an archaic term. lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63812/supplement/A2
Of course, the whole thing appears to just be legal comedy to frustrate Desantis, so also no doubt they don't care and why the heck would they?
Legal comedy is fair comment, certain re: RDS.
BUT legal comedy worth hundreds of millions, if not more.
1) I learned about this specific trick during my year as a law student in UK.
2) As @Ricredman points out, just this trick was plot line of fabulous *FLORIDA-BASED* movie Body Heat.
3) If *EVEN I* (not a lawyer) know this, and gov of FL didn't...
4) Clowns
I *guarantee* that the Disney lawyer who suggested this stratagem remembered it not from law school but from the 1981 movie "Body Heat," set in Florida, starring Wm Hurt & Kathleen Turner, the plot of which turns on Hurt, a lawyer, having messed up the Rule Against Perpetuities. https://twitter.com/ricredman/status/1641230863588540416
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
I expect you won't be drawn, but was he quartered there?
He was (illegally) tried there - but not quartered. You perhaps didn't train at Bart's!
SNP down 25% from the 2019 UK general election there in first poll since Yousaf became SNP leader
I get the impression you've never done maths. All that averages and means and medians stuff. And now someone ought to take you by the hand and explain about rounding errors, margins of error, and so on.
SNP got 4% UK wide in 2019, they are now down to 3% UK wide in both polls out tonight taken after Yousaf became SNP leader and FM. Indeed 3% matches what the SNP got in 2017 when they lost 21 seats in Scotland
I am as keen as you to see Scottish indy booted into the dustbin of history, but @Carnyx is right. These are mere subsamples. @StuartDickson - so oddly absent of late - got rightly banned for continuously and deceptively citing them
There have been nationwide polls in the last few days when the Nats have SURGED from 4% to 5%. What do you make of that? It means all these polls are meaningless, at this sub-sample and granular level
We will have to patiently wait for a genuine Scotland-only poll by a decent company. My guess is that the Nat support WILL be badly damaged, but that indy will take only a modest dent, if anything. Down a point or two
But who knows?
It's not odd, really, that he's absent, given his - ahem - actions just before his disappearance.
I am not going to criticise the judgment of the mods, but getting banned for that is certainly strict
@StuartDickson could be an arse, and it was unwise and impolite for him to say that, but he also gave some good insight, was astute on Scottish matters, and offered the odd decent Swedish BBQ recipe. I hope he is soon unbanned and returns
Lincoln - of the people, by the people, for the people
Leon - of the banned, by the banned, for the banned
A sustained period of 60-40% Yes-No polling is often mentioned as grounds for Indyref II. How long does this polling have to carry on for EUref II to be a goer?
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
There is something appealing about its simplicity that gets me (I know it was actually a complex bugger to build).
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
Hemicycles are so dull, they say "let's have a coalition and reach a consensus". Nice. Yawn
The Commons is all about brutal opposition, the arrangement says - cross that line and I will skewer you with my sword (literally)
This has served Britain well and badly over the years. But we would be mad to give it up. Generally, it works
A sustained period of 60-40% Yes-No polling is often mentioned as grounds for Indyref II. How long does this polling have to carry on for EUref II to be a goer?
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
There is something appealing about its simplicity that gets me (I know it was actually a complex bugger to build).
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
Hemicycles are so dull, they say "let's have a coalition and reach a consensus". Nice. Yawn
The Commons is all about brutal opposition, the arrangement says - cross that line and I will skewer you with my sword (literally)
This has served Britain well and badly over the years. But we would be mad to give it up. Generally, it works
Till it falls down on the MPs, though. Shitty state at present, as we all know. They seem to have gone very quiet. (I do hope Westminster Hall is in decent condition, but have no idea.)
A sustained period of 60-40% Yes-No polling is often mentioned as grounds for Indyref II. How long does this polling have to carry on for EUref II to be a goer?
Yes, this is a valid point that I have made myself
I am a Leaver but if the polls show Rejoin at 60% for several years then this cannot be ignored and politics must pay attention. The same rule applies to Scotland as to the UK.
But the generation argument also applies. 15-20 years minimum
If by 2035 the polls show 60%+ persistently want to Rejoin, then we must have another Brexit vote
Wait, that's from a Panelbase poll from BEFORE the leadership result, and before much of the worst of the SNP scandals? Isn't it? That's what the original tweet suggests. Or am I wrong?
So we can expect the next poll to be considerably better/worse for the Nats, depending on whether you think Humza Yousaf is a Churchillian genius comparable with Lincoln/twat
I must say that I intensely dislike the fashion for mocking a person's name like this. Yousaf becomes Useless, Kama-Kwasi for Kwasi Kwarteng, Cruella for Suella.
Seems a recent trait.
Started with Bliar, I think.
Richard Cromwell was known as Queen Dick.....
Tumbledown Dick as well
And in the 1800s Richard Martin was called Humanity Dick or Nimble Dick depending on whether you liked him or not
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
There is something appealing about its simplicity that gets me (I know it was actually a complex bugger to build).
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
Hemicycles are so dull, they say "let's have a coalition and reach a consensus". Nice. Yawn
The Commons is all about brutal opposition, the arrangement says - cross that line and I will skewer you with my sword (literally)
This has served Britain well and badly over the years. But we would be mad to give it up. Generally, it works
Till it falls down on the MPs, though. Shitty state at present, as we all know. They seem to have gone very quiet. (I do hope Westminster Hall is in decent condition, but have no idea.)
Zero chance of them agreeing to fund what it would cost to repair the place, even if they agreed to vacate in order to make it quicker and cheaper and do a slapdash job, with a GE 12-18 months away.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
Queen Victoria could apparently only speak German for the first few years of her life.
Ditto Queen Mary, the one who was KCIII's great-granny. And plenty of consorts, and monarchs, before her.
Why they called the great gene pool of the British Monarchy "the German kennels".
To be fair, most other European royal houses used the same kennels.
Correction - most other PROTESTANT European royal houses.
Religion being literally make/break for British monarchs, and not just them.
Note that, because they are by definition NOT Roman Catholic, marriages between Protestant and Orthodox royals have been both possible, and pretty common.
For examples, Catherine the Great and Prince Philip.
It is a very moving memorial, and admirably even handed, covering the Nazi bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam, the Hamburg Fire-bombing victims, and also the Nazi response including deporting Hamburg's remaining Jews in order to rehome German families, even a bit on RAF bomber crews.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
William Wallace left a pretty so-so review on Tripadvisor I believe.
Was he tried and convicted there?! I know it was used for that purpose - Charles the First being the prime example - but Wallace too?
It is arguably the most incredible secular room - a single built space with floor, doors and walls - that I have ever been inside, in terms of mood, story, vibe and Wow
I've been in a few places with even more psychological impact, maybe, but they are all religious - from Hagia Sophia to Durham Cathedral to St Peters Rome &c
I felt a similar jag most recently at Gleise 17, partly because in some ways it’s quite unremarkable, a little rundown & overgrown, until you see the ribbons of metal embossed with numbers and dates.
The moment of reverence was somewhat dispelled when a couple of old (German) dears tottered up the stairs from Grunewald S-Bahn asking if they could catch a train from there.
A sustained period of 60-40% Yes-No polling is often mentioned as grounds for Indyref II. How long does this polling have to carry on for EUref II to be a goer?
Brexiteers of course had to wait 41 years from the first EEC referendum in 1975 for the second EU referendum in 2016.
Neither the Tories nor Starmer Labour have any interest in offering EUref2 anyway now under FPTP given the redwall swing seats will be pivotal in deciding the next general election and are more Leave than average.
On the SNP front, has anyone floated abstentionism as an option at all? 35-50 of the total Scottish MPs not showing up would be a powerful message, if indeed the answer to their continued electorate success (if it does continue) is to just ignore and hope it goes away.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
To be fair, KCIII seems to be going down rather well in Germany.
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
Shocking pronunciation, sadly.
IF yours truly was a monarch of the House of Windsor-Battenburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hanover, pretty sure that I'd make a point of speaking German with an awful English accent . . . at least outside the family circle!
How very dare you - he's a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg! (cadet branch)
Just more sauer-Krauts for HM's family smorgesbord!
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
There is something appealing about its simplicity that gets me (I know it was actually a complex bugger to build).
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
Hemicycles are so dull, they say "let's have a coalition and reach a consensus". Nice. Yawn
The Commons is all about brutal opposition, the arrangement says - cross that line and I will skewer you with my sword (literally)
This has served Britain well and badly over the years. But we would be mad to give it up. Generally, it works
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
There is something appealing about its simplicity that gets me (I know it was actually a complex bugger to build).
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
Hemicycles are so dull, they say "let's have a coalition and reach a consensus". Nice. Yawn
The Commons is all about brutal opposition, the arrangement says - cross that line and I will skewer you with my sword (literally)
This has served Britain well and badly over the years. But we would be mad to give it up. Generally, it works
Till it falls down on the MPs, though. Shitty state at present, as we all know. They seem to have gone very quiet. (I do hope Westminster Hall is in decent condition, but have no idea.)
Zero chance of them agreeing to fund what it would cost to repair the place, even if they agreed to vacate in order to make it quicker and cheaper and do a slapdash job, with a GE 12-18 months away.
And it is only getting more expensive...
At some point the staff will have to strike. The only question is how many have to die or be maimed first.
Edit: I assume Parliament is above the law when it comes to things like H&S and corporate manslaughter.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
That picture is not doing his comb over any favours.
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
NOTHING matches Westminster Hall. It is the greatest single room in Europe and probably the world (with the possible exception of the Pantheon, and that is now an exquisite museum piece). All that history - 1000 years - and still functioning as a political space. Rufus' Roaring Hall. And that roof!
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
There is something appealing about its simplicity that gets me (I know it was actually a complex bugger to build).
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
The roof's survival is astonishing, and leads to one of my favourite stories about London's quirks. In 1904, Parliament decided much of it needed replacing, but could not find any oak trees in England big enough. Eventually, someone thought to ask the person who owned the estate from which the original trees had come. George Courthorpe, whose family had owned the estate since before the original trees were cut down, not only had trees that were large enough, but it turned out they had been planted six hundred years before, and were perfect for replacing the existing roof.
Amazing both that the trees had been planted with that degree of foresight, and that the purpose of those trees had been passed down one family through the centuries.
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
It may not be his official title, but KC3 is King of England, as well as some other places.
I don’t believe so - I think the crowns of England and Scotland were merged so he is king of the UK
Re: the Mickey Mouse attack by Ron DeSantis against . . . wait for it . . . Mickey Mouse, and the response of Disney Corp and it's corps of corporate lawyers, one thing puzzling me is this:
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
It would be funny if it legally quashed (or whatever) even faster than it already would be on the basis they didn't even list the royal title correctly.
Ona more serious note, very interesting speech from KCIII in Germany today.
The roof's survival is astonishing, and leads to one of my favourite stories about London's quirks. In 1904, Parliament decided much of it needed replacing, but could not find any oak trees in England big enough. Eventually, someone thought to ask the person who owned the estate from which the original trees had come. George Courthorpe, whose family had owned the estate since before the original trees were cut down, not only had trees that were large enough, but it turned out they had been planted six hundred years before, and were perfect for replacing the existing roof.
Amazing both that the trees had been planted with that degree of foresight, and that the purpose of those trees had been passed down one family through the centuries.
I heard an identical story, only it was an Oxbridge college and whichever department might be responsible for all things arboreal...
Comments
Leaving aside the ones being built in Timbuctoo, the last I heard was that 4 out of 10 large Calmac ferries were kaput, and that was affecting various communities. That was late Feb.
The underlying cause really being some years of sparse investment some time ago, leaving the fleet containing too many ancient mariners.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unleashing-Demons-Inside-Story-Brexit/dp/1473652456
Well worth reading, lots of interesting stuff in there.
These LD leaders certainly put it about liberally.
WHY did they refer to "King Charles III, King of England" when (as Carlotta pointed out yesterday) that his NOT KCIII's official title?
Some obscure legalism (even more obscure than a "royal clause"? Or just good old-fashion American ignorance?
IF the later, seems like oversight to NOT have a history major on the payroll somewhere, at least one who didn't skip too many classes?
Heck, even PB's own answer to Cliff Clavin could have set 'em straight!
The Duchess of Pork, for example.
What I don't like is these portmanteau names for celebrity couples. TomKat. Brangelina. That sort of thing.
My guess is that, when it was first coined, "Dizzy" was NOT meant in a positive way?
Certainly "Orange" Peel wasn't. Nor "Bloody" Balfour.
Aethelred the Unready literally means "King Well-Advised the Badly Advised"
So the idea that Bliar or "Remoaners" or Yousless are silly new confections is CULLIONS
DW were going to town about it.
https://www.dw.com/en/king-charles-lauds-german-uk-relations-in-bundestag-speech/a-65178827
Certainly it doesn't exist as a kingdom, so he can't be king of it.
LAB-S&D: 46%
CON~ECR: 30% (-1)
LDEM-RE: 9% (+1)
REFORM~NI: 5%
GREENS-G/EFA: 4%
SNP-G/EFA: 3% (-1)
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1641529356999598086?s=20
I saw his speech in German. I was rather impressed, and I'm not someone who's naturally inclined to the guy.
It'll probably close by 5-6 points by polling day. They'll still win but not by a landslide.
https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1641183509296431115?s=20
Here in the great Pacific Northwest, ferries and their tribulations are a HUGE issue for both State of Washington, which operates a large ferry system, and Province of British Columbia, which has even bigger network, with larger boats and more passengers (and cars).
He's a King in England, and including England, not of England (not until Sindy anyway)
It'd take 5 seconds to google official terminology unless there's some obscure legal reason to use an archaic term.
lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63812/supplement/A2
Of course, the whole thing appears to just be legal comedy to frustrate Desantis, so also no doubt they don't care and why the heck would they?
It could indicate the future of the SNP (and indy) for the next 5-10 years
If the Nats are still dominant then it means they can survive the most severe turbulence and a pretty crap new leader. Indy gives them a 40+ base, and that's it. Which means indy will return within a decade as a threat. If they start dipping below 40 then the entire concept of Sindy could be in jeopardy
Genuinely hard to call
Don't know whether it would be true, but you wonder, given his vehemence on the subject...
I'm also not a fan of the Bundestag chamber. Bit bland (albeit a cool eagle), lacks colour and some character. The French Senate has a bit more oomph, probably why he wanted to go there first.
There have been nationwide polls in the last few days when the Nats have SURGED from 4% to 5%. What do you make of that? It means all these polls are meaningless, at this sub-sample and granular level
We will have to patiently wait for a genuine Scotland-only poll by a decent company. My guess is that the Nat support WILL be badly damaged, but that indy will take only a modest dent, if anything. Down a point or two
But who knows?
If the next Holyrood elections produce a Unionist majority support for independence is completely irrelevant as there will be no majority in Holyrood to even request an independence referendum, which Starmer as well as Sunak have ruled out for now anyway. Without a strong Westminster SNP presence Starmer can ignore them there too
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4337344/#Comment_4337344
Ashamed to say I’ve let the Duolingo slide but intend to do some on-site courses at the Goethe-Institut in the Autumn.
Edit: pronunciation I see.
Zelensky's speech in London, to the MPs and Lords, was so powerful partly because he gave it there. In Westminster Hall
BUT legal comedy worth hundreds of millions, if not more.
At least he didn’t sound like a mediocre GCSE student.
I lived out on the Western Isles for a while and I think this captures the attachment that people have to CalMac. A lifeline public service which isn't always great.
The one I spent some of my childhood on (MV Hebrides) had a fire recently.
@StuartDickson could be an arse, and it was unwise and impolite for him to say that, but he also gave some good insight, was astute on Scottish matters, and offered the odd decent Swedish BBQ recipe. I hope he is soon unbanned and returns
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2023/03/exclusive-scot-goes-pop-panelbase-poll_30.html
Anyway the Scottish Westminster VI revealed is:
SNP 40%
Lab 33%
Con 16%
LD 6%
Electoral Calculus gives the resultant seat distribution as:
SNP 36
Lab 16
LD 4
Con 3
Fieldwork 7th-10th March, published 30th March! Why would the pro-secession blog that commissioned the poll apparently sit on the results until 3 weeks after the fieldwork was done, only to publish it now?
The comments from the nat contributers below the line won't make happy reading for Yousless.
It's a big, long hall with a large window at the end, not much frills, and there's a weird weight to cramming thousands in who all have to peer as best they can at distant figures lit by the glow at the far end.
The Commons is iconic and has a clear theme, so though replicated elsewhere it seems to have a bit more identity that the poor Bundestag, which looks like it could be any other hemicycle.
I do kind of like the European Parliament hemicycles, simply because they are so massive. Jon Stewart joked about it being the galactic senate from Star Wars.
Why they called the great gene pool of the British Monarchy "the German kennels".
It is arguably the most incredible secular room - a single built space with floor, doors and walls - that I have ever been inside, in terms of mood, story, vibe and Wow
I've been in a few places with even more psychological impact, maybe, but they are all religious - from Hagia Sophia to Durham Cathedral to St Peters Rome &c
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1641507334282174482
To say it again:
1) I learned about this specific trick during my year as a law student in UK.
2) As @Ricredman points out, just this trick was plot line of fabulous *FLORIDA-BASED* movie Body Heat.
3) If *EVEN I* (not a lawyer) know this, and gov of FL didn't...
4) Clowns
https://twitter.com/ricredman/status/1641230863588540416
"Why capitalism loves transgenderism
Some British communists have finally said it – the trans ideology is neoliberalism in drag"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/30/why-capitalism-loves-transgenderism/
https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/westminster-hall-william-wallace-elizabeth-ii-silver-jubilee
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/william-wallace-memorial
Leon - of the banned, by the banned, for the banned
The Commons is all about brutal opposition, the arrangement says - cross that line and I will skewer you with my sword (literally)
This has served Britain well and badly over the years. But we would be mad to give it up. Generally, it works
Granted, a much much better reason already exists as grounds and is being ignored.
I am a Leaver but if the polls show Rejoin at 60% for several years then this cannot be ignored and politics must pay attention. The same rule applies to Scotland as to the UK.
But the generation argument also applies. 15-20 years minimum
If by 2035 the polls show 60%+ persistently want to Rejoin, then we must have another Brexit vote
And it is only getting more expensive...
Religion being literally make/break for British monarchs, and not just them.
Note that, because they are by definition NOT Roman Catholic, marriages between Protestant and Orthodox royals have been both possible, and pretty common.
For examples, Catherine the Great and Prince Philip.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/29/king-charles-to-lay-wreath-to-german-victims-of-wartime-air-raids
It is a very moving memorial, and admirably even handed, covering the Nazi bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam, the Hamburg Fire-bombing victims, and also the Nazi response including deporting Hamburg's remaining Jews in order to rehome German families, even a bit on RAF bomber crews.
The moment of reverence was somewhat dispelled when a couple of old (German) dears tottered up the stairs from Grunewald S-Bahn asking if they could catch a train from there.
Neither the Tories nor Starmer Labour have any interest in offering EUref2 anyway now under FPTP given the redwall swing seats will be pivotal in deciding the next general election and are more Leave than average.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vh5D93ShO4
Edit: I assume Parliament is above the law when it comes to things like H&S and corporate manslaughter.
Amazing both that the trees had been planted with that degree of foresight, and that the purpose of those trees had been passed down one family through the centuries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDCe1dmXu0&ab_channel=TheTelegraph