Just got in, slightly pissed.. some bloke just spat in my face in a brentwood cab office! Nice! And I can almost guarantee you he was far far far to the right of me politically!
All I can say to the left wingers that answered my post on the previous thread is that if you like to live in a country where a significant minority speak another language as their first port of call, then fair enough. I think that's not for me, its not the best way for a country to live in happiness.. what more can I say?
Sorry to hear you were spat at; that's never pleasant.
I answered your post and disagreed with you; you say that you're an ex-Labour voter, and so I'm probably to the right of you in some ways. As with most things in politics, immigration and languages has far from a perfect left<->right split.
Besides you were using figures of 22% for London, and now saying the entire country?
Last night's thread should be a must-read for anyone interested in the fear that people have about immigration. I mean, a burly man feeling afraid to walk through Whitechapel Market!
Who was Feeling afraid? @Nigel4England said it was hard to know what country you were in
Maybe it's a 'must read again' for you!,
His quote from last night: "The walk from the station up to Vallance Road, the market is like a third world country, quite scary actually and I am a big bloke."
It's laughably pathetic from someone who appears to take pride in fighting with football hooligans: "I've stood on the Southbank at West Ham and fought toe to toe with the ICF in their heyday, not out of choice we were attacked, and done the same in the Cold Blow Lane end at the Old Den. Not much frightens me."
I agree with him, there is something sinister about walking through a neighbourhood where everyone is a different race and religion to you, speaking in a different language and writing in a different alphabet, especially when there are fundamentalists in that religion that think it's ok to behead people like us, egged on by multicultural loving excuse makers
So unless you feel there is something sinister about walking through an area in which people are mostly non-white and not speaking English you are a multicultural excuse maker? I have to say I have never felt remotely threated walking through Chinatown, but then I am a lefty who hates my country.
Crikey theres a bit of word twisting that Mick Pork would be proud of!
Crikey! isam starts bleating and whining about other posters when he struggles to defend his own eccentric views. That's a shocker.
1.Wall Street Journal @WSJ 7m Breaking: Russia's Black Sea fleet: cooperating with Crimea authorities on security of fleet facilities http://on.wsj.com/1oOslWm
2.Wall Street Journal @WSJ 52s Breaking: Russia parliament asks Putin to 'use all available means to protect' Crimea population http://on.wsj.com/1oOslWm
Bets that Obo won't move a muscle to counter Russian moves.
How long before a Russian Battle Fleet sails up the Clyde and the Forth to make itself comfy in a defenceless independent Scotland...
You and Watcher should call each other, both loonies, fixated on Scotland. Worry about your own countries , we will be fine.
Fixated on Alba? I'm not a Nat! But if you want to give me £50K, I'm more than happy to set up 'Watcher over Scotland'.
You seem upset Malcolm. Is it the realisation that Rosyth and Yarrow face the prospect of being stripped out and shut down, if there's a 'Yes' vote?
Why would I be upset, I am very happy indeed, only 7 months till victory. They will only be closed if the vote is NO. You are not really very bright are you.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
In military terms Russia is a second-tier player: She had to buy French Amphibs because she has no knowledge of LHD/LHA development. Her tanks are target practice for the CH-II clones.
Russia plays in-and-with second-world countries: India, Venezuela, Angola: The rich Arabs avoid her widow-makers. Russia may bully Georgia or decimate the Chechyns but Russia cannot compete toe-to-toe with nations with ISTAR support, global reach and integrated systems.
:sad-but-true:
LOL, I await UK and US doing anything with such superiority. tumbleweed.......
To be fair some some NeoCon halfwits were shrieking about Obama not responding as he was responding. However much of a mess it is right now you can be absolutely certain that turning the likes of Blair and the NeoCons loose on it would make it far, far worse.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
Your freudian slip was very telling, don't get upset about it we do expect it as normal behaviour when you boys get excited.
ps. You thinking England = UK has no bearing on my pride. I am Scottish and happy with that.
How long before a Russian Battle Fleet sails up the Clyde and the Forth to make itself comfy in a defenceless independent Scotland...
You and Watcher should call each other, both loonies, fixated on Scotland. Worry about your own countries , we will be fine.
Fixated on Alba? I'm not a Nat! But if you want to give me £50K, I'm more than happy to set up 'Watcher over Scotland'.
You seem upset Malcolm. Is it the realisation that Rosyth and Yarrow face the prospect of being stripped out and shut down, if there's a 'Yes' vote?
Why would I be upset, I am very happy indeed, only 7 months till victory. They will only be closed if the vote is NO. You are not really very bright are you.
The sad reality is that there won't be enough work post independence to keep those yards going, and the tooling and kit will be moved elsewhere, be it Barrow, or the mothballed sites at Vosper or Devonport for RN contracts.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I didn't say that everyone in the country saw themselves as culturally English, I just pointed out that the countries were *predominantly* English culture. Even if you concluded that the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not English in culture at all, the country would still be 85% English. (Well, maybe 75% once you take out the recent immigrants).
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
Just got in, slightly pissed.. some bloke just spat in my face in a brentwood cab office! Nice! And I can almost guarantee you he was far far far to the right of me politically!
All I can say to the left wingers that answered my post on the previous thread is that if you like to live in a country where a significant minority speak another language as their first port of call, then fair enough. I think that's not for me, its not the best way for a country to live in happiness.. what more can I say?
about immigration. I mean, a burly man feeling afraid to walk through Whitechapel Market!
Who was Feeling afraid? @Nigel4England said it was hard to know what country you were in
Maybe it's a 'must read again' for you!,
His quote from last night: "The walk from the station up to Vallance Road, the market is like a third world country, quite scary actually and I am a big bloke."
It's laughably pathetic from someone who appears to take pride in fighting with football hooligans: "I've stood on the Southbank at West Ham and fought toe to toe with the ICF in their heyday, not out of choice we were attacked, and done the same in the Cold Blow Lane end at the Old Den. Not much frightens me."
I agree with him, there is something sinister about walking through a neighbourhood where everyone is a different race and religion to you, speaking in a different language and writing in a different alphabet, especially when there are fundamentalists in that religion that think it's ok to behead people like us, egged on by multicultural loving excuse makers
So unless you feel there is something sinister about walking through an area in which people are mostly non-white and not speaking English you are a multicultural excuse maker? I have to say I have never felt remotely threated walking through Chinatown, but then I am a lefty who hates my country.
Crikey theres a bit of word twisting that Mick Pork would be proud of!
Crikey! isam starts bleating and whining about other posters when he struggles to defend his own eccentric views. That's a shocker.
Are you suggesting we go toe to toe with the Russkis in armed combat?
People have made that mistake before, and come off worse...
The Crimean crisis is secondary to the economic problems of Ukraine. The per capita GDP is only $4000, compared to $18 000 in Russia, though fifteen years ago they were similar.
The Ukranian revolt has more in common with the arab spring than anything else, and while the toppled dictators needed to go, the opposition has more than a few nasty elements. This is Syria in Russias front yard. I can see that protecting their interests in Crimea is wise, and we need to be wiser in response than in the arab spring.
Revolutions rarely produce good governments, though paradoxically failed revolutions often lead to concessions and progress. Either that or a bloodbath of tyranny, it can go either way.
In military terms Russia is a second-tier player: She had to buy French Amphibs because she has no knowledge of LHD/LHA development. Her tanks are target practice for the CH-II clones.
Russia plays in-and-with second-world countries: India, Venezuela, Angola: The rich Arabs avoid her widow-makers. Russia may bully Georgia or decimate the Chechyns but Russia cannot compete toe-to-toe with nations with ISTAR support, global reach and integrated systems.
Except the quote in the Twitter post wasn't said by Clegg. It's a shame that not only are you an unpleasant person that struggles with decent human interaction, you're also not very bright.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
You're EIGHTEEN points behind in the latest YouGov indypoll.
No: 53 Yes: 35
Funnily enough that is practically identical to a YouGov poll taken in March 2011, which showed this:
No: 51 Yes: 33
Yes were EIGHTEEN points behind then, too.
The bizarre thing is just how little the polls have moved, not how much. All that sound and fury from both camps, all these devastating blows and brilliant coups, all these blunders and wonders from the SNP and Better Together, and the polls are still gently orbiting around an average 15 point lead to No.
I doubt the polls will change much. On both sides the people who have made up there minds wont change them. If you speak to people who aren't particularly involved in the campaign and don't feel strongly either way they're just fed up at the though of 7 more months of the campaign.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I didn't say that everyone in the country saw themselves as culturally English, I just pointed out that the countries were *predominantly* English culture. Even if you concluded that the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not English in culture at all, the country would still be 85% English. (Well, maybe 75% once you take out the recent immigrants).
I am not sure I know what English culture is, as opposed to British culture.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
You can believe what you like if it makes you feel any better. I know which campaign is currently crapping themselves as the enormity of the hole they are in begins to dawn on them.
That’s right – the latest desperate plea for cash from the No camp is a chain letter.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
Just got in, slightly pissed.. some bloke just spat in my face in a brentwood cab office! Nice! And I can almost guarantee you he was far far far to the right of me politically!
All I can say to the left wingers that answered my post on the previous thread is that if you like to live in a country where a significant minority speak another language as their first port of call, then fair enough. I think that's not for me, its not the best way for a country to live in happiness.. what more can I say?
about immigration. I mean, a burly man feeling afraid to walk through Whitechapel Market!
Who was Feeling afraid? @Nigel4England said it was hard to know what country you were in
Maybe it's a 'must read again' for you!,
His quote from last night: "The walk from the station up to Vallance Road, the market is like a third world country, quite scary actually and I am a big bloke."
It's laughably pathetic from someone who appears to take pride in fighting with football hooligans: "I've stood on the Southbank at West Ham and fought toe to toe with the ICF in their heyday, not out of choice we were attacked, and done the same in the Cold Blow Lane end at the Old Den. Not much frightens me."
I agree with him, there is something sinister about walking through a neighbourhood where everyone is a different race and religion to you, speaking in a different language and writing in a different alphabet, especially when there are fundamentalists in that religion that think it's ok to behead people like us, egged on by multicultural loving excuse makers
So unless you feel there is something sinister about walking through an area in which people are mostly non-white and not speaking English you are a multicultural excuse maker? I have to say I have never felt remotely threated walking through Chinatown, but then I am a lefty who hates my country.
Crikey theres a bit of word twisting that Mick Pork would be proud of!
Crikey! isam starts bleating and whining about other posters when he struggles to defend his own eccentric views. That's a shocker.
Wheres the bleating and whining?
Any post you say that disagrees with him wil be viewed as "bleating and whining" in his eyes. Just as everything is "unspoofable" and "hilarious". And if you finally get fed up of teenage insults, you will have "flounced". Since tim left, he's become the most unwanted poster on here, just with less political insight.
The people who will take the Russians on IF it comes to armed confrontation of some kind are the Ukrainians themselves. If the West wants to give Russia a hard time it a) isolates Russia as much as it can economically and b) it supports the Ukrainians and indirectly the almost certain associated guerilla groups who would spring up in such a prolonged armed situation with the wherewithal.
Secondly its not about how big Russia's military is its about its its ability to sustain expeditionary warfare on territory where it does not have an absolute land border. This is severely limited in proportion to its armed forces size. Crimea has nothing but water round one way, no matter how narrow and the Ukrainian border on the other.
Looking at the facts the Russians took 6 days alone to put in a total of around 6000 additional troops in an area that they a) had a port in, b) isn't far from their border and c) they had unchallenged access to. I can tell you now that was a reasonable stretch to get what were rapid reaction forces who were already gearing up to move and by their nature are designed to in totality within 72 hours.
The Russian bear is over estimated in its conventional force strength. Forget the nuclear issue its simply not going to come to that. The Ukrainians alone have the numbers to make Russian life a misery. This of course, forgets about Tatars and their traditional friends in Turkey and other parties within the Ukraine who are perfectly willing to go launch some slow bleed activity against the Russians in Crimea.
The critical question is not that the West will send boats to make Boris think again. They are:
1. How long Russian troops stay on the streets. It sis likely they will want them offside soon enough if they can and hand over to local security forces and then return to barracks as a 'dont get any ideas' force. If they get them offside fast the West will probably mysteriously forget the whole thing.
2. Whether the West will actually do anything in practice at all other than talk. Remember its Obama, a man frankly who if you wanted to mug someone would be a good target because he'd not bother fighting back.
"Major English powers" is just another way of saying "the Anglosphere" or the "English speaking world" or what the French call "les Anglo-Saxons".
All these terms are perfectly valid. And politically significant. Ask Mrs Merkel how she feels about being surveyed by the Five Eyes alliance: of the "English-speaking" intelligence agencies.
English-speaking is a very different thing to being culturally English. The terms Anglo-Saxon and Anglosphere surely refer to linguistics and institutions, not culture.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
I don't think that any of those countries would recognise themselves as being culturally "English" in any way. They all have strong British connections, but that is very, very different.
And Irish!
The idea that Canada was quintessentially English surprised me so much in view of what I have read in the past about it being a focus of Scottish emigration that I checked and indeed the Canadian census "ethnic origins" has English 21%, French 16%, Scots 15% and Irish 14%, after plain 'Canadian' 32% - the rest is Germans and so on down to and through Welsh at 1.4%. So Mr Observer is absolutely right at least for Canada.
English in the sense of being Anglophone, yes, but even then Canada has the biggest Scots Gaelic speaking population in the world.
"Major English powers" is just another way of saying "the Anglosphere" or the "English speaking world" or what the French call "les Anglo-Saxons".
All these terms are perfectly valid. And politically significant. Ask Mrs Merkel how she feels about being surveyed by the Five Eyes alliance: of the "English-speaking" intelligence agencies.
Except the quote in the Twitter post wasn't said by Clegg. It's a shame that not only are you an unpleasant person that struggles with decent human interaction, you're also not very bright.
Oh dear. You really are struggling now aren't you? Clegg was self-evidently dog-whistling against Gypsies. Go back to your muslim and 'ethnic' obsessions you sad little hate filled man. Your posts here are sub Daily Mail in their bloviating stupidity.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I didn't say that everyone in the country saw themselves as culturally English, I just pointed out that the countries were *predominantly* English culture. Even if you concluded that the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not English in culture at all, the country would still be 85% English. (Well, maybe 75% once you take out the recent immigrants).
I am not sure I know what English culture is, as opposed to British culture.
Well, the Highlander clan system is an example of British culture that isn't English culture.
94% LD, 84% Con, 76% Lab. I know people say they are all the same, but that really seems to suggest I am incapable of choosing between them if my top there are the big three
Once did one of these and had the BNP come out as top(!), I think because I put strongly that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, but they're bottom for me this time. Surprised Greens and UKIP on 67% for me, as I cannot remember the last time I heard some radical left Green proposal I agreed with.
"Major English powers" is just another way of saying "the Anglosphere" or the "English speaking world" or what the French call "les Anglo-Saxons".
All these terms are perfectly valid. And politically significant. Ask Mrs Merkel how she feels about being surveyed by the Five Eyes alliance: of the "English-speaking" intelligence agencies.
Right. It just seems more sense to talk about "English powers" rather than "Anglo-Saxon powers", considering many of the defining aspects of the English world's political culture emerged several centuries after the Anglo-Saxons ceased to be.
You are a little in error, on the subject of kilts. The modern form (and most or all of traditional tartans) were invented by an English businessman, exploiting the Victorian fashion for things Scottish:
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
Are you suggesting we go toe to toe with the Russkis in armed combat?
People have made that mistake before, and come off worse....
Oh God; Dr Fox....
Where did I state that? As an highly-paid NHS employee - don't snigger - I'd assume you are educated enough to read and - maybe - comprehend...?
My point is that the Russian "bear" is not a monolithic military machine. It relies on third-parties to maintain enough capability for basic national defence. The Russian armed-forces would not contemplate going toe-to-toe with China as they would lose in the numbers-war.
The West - and I mean ABCA(N), France and The Netherlands - are far ahead in the multiplex of capabilities that make expeditionary warfare a tool-of-diplomacy. Russia has an undemocratic, brutish thuggery that would only appeal to narrow-minds and other bullies....
I was quite young when Wilson was PM, but he was not too bad, and also benefited from having the unlikeable Ted Heath as his opponent. Wilson did have a very capable cabinet though, much more heavyweight than Labours current front bench.
I find comparing Miliband to Wilson problematic. I never much liked Wilson (who did apart from the unions?) and he certainly shared the ability to connive and collude but he was still a heavyweight. I might not have liked his politics but I never listened to him and thought 'oh dearie me.' When I heard Miliband's leadership victory speech I felt like one of the audience to Marlin's joke in Finding Nemo. See their expressions around 30s? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRad4Y3FPdM
Miliband is younger at the same stage but can I see him ever having Wilson's gravitas? You must be joking, right?
As said below, he simply isn't Prime Minister material.
In fairness Mr sox I would rank the 1970s Labour cabinet well ahead of the current cabinet. Wilson had a double first and Crossman and.Crossland were no slouches. I am not sure politics attracts that kind of intellectual heavyweight anymore.
I would disagree with you. They had an unhealthy ideology that for some included Marxism - Healey was the best of a bad bunch and some (e.g. Brown) were really clueless.
Some may have been intellectual heavyweights, but it was all theory and no experience.
Oh I agree some of the policies and theories were idiotic or positively harmful. All I was saying was that in terms of intellectual heft that generation of politicos was completely different from what we get today which is why so many of our politicians of all parties seem so plastic.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've no doubt the Yes campaign is better organised and better funded, and, judging by the cybernats on here, they have more passion and commitment - after all they have a dazzling prize to attain - their FREEDOM. That is a much more positive rallying cry than "Please don't screw my pension".
However, the Yes campaign needs all this (and, I would say, a lot more), because ranged against them is most of the Scottish Establishment, all the British establishment, the vast majority of the media (especially the BBC), and much of big business, especially big business in Scotland. That is an enormous firepower bearing down on you, and you are charging uphill, like the Ulstermen at Thiepval.
I think you are doing well, in the circumstances, and you have a chance (thanks to that passion and commitment). But as of this moment you are still most likely to lose.
It will all boil down to the last 6 weeks of campaigning.
How long before a Russian Battle Fleet sails up the Clyde and the Forth to make itself comfy in a defenceless independent Scotland...
You and Watcher should call each other, both loonies, fixated on Scotland. Worry about your own countries , we will be fine.
Fixated on Alba? I'm not a Nat! But if you want to give me £50K, I'm more than happy to set up 'Watcher over Scotland'.
You seem upset Malcolm. Is it the realisation that Rosyth and Yarrow face the prospect of being stripped out and shut down, if there's a 'Yes' vote?
Why would I be upset, I am very happy indeed, only 7 months till victory. They will only be closed if the vote is NO. You are not really very bright are you.
The sad reality is that there won't be enough work post independence to keep those yards going, and the tooling and kit will be moved elsewhere, be it Barrow, or the mothballed sites at Vosper or Devonport for RN contracts.
The sad reality is that due to stupidity the yards are focussed only on declining MOD contracts. They are being shutdown now, a few frigates in the future may keep a handful of jobs going but for sure in the UK they are closing. When independent like other normal countries , perhaps they will diversify and do other work and possibly may stay open. So for the shipyards it is some hope or NO hope.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I didn't say that everyone in the country saw themselves as culturally English, I just pointed out that the countries were *predominantly* English culture. Even if you concluded that the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not English in culture at all, the country would still be 85% English. (Well, maybe 75% once you take out the recent immigrants).
I am not sure I know what English culture is, as opposed to British culture.
Well, the Highlander clan system is an example of British culture that isn't English culture.
The clan system long preceded unions of crowns and countries, was in decline from the 17th century, and utterly destroyed in 1746 by 'Britishness'.
In 2017 this thread needs to be revived so those who thought ed would be a good pm can give us their update. The cuts have to be bigger in the next parliament and he has opposed everyone bought in so far. He will increase taxes and destroy the economy following Hollandes model. People think the 50% cut was a terrible decision. How has our economy done since that decision?
As an aside I've spent a few days in Paris taking the tempature recently. Hollande has performed a complete volte face, at least in word. Everything about entrepreneurs now (what is the French word for that again?).
The fundamental reason why he is so unpopular though us that people voted *against* Sarkozy not for Hollande. I suspect Ed May face the same challenge.
He may well, but every politician in the world would be willing to face such a backlash by not rocking the boat and getting the 'vote against' rather than a vote 'for them'. Nothing is more important than winning, and so better to give the wrong impression now and deal with unpopularity later, than be straight up but lose.
"Major English powers" is just another way of saying "the Anglosphere" or the "English speaking world" or what the French call "les Anglo-Saxons".
All these terms are perfectly valid. And politically significant. Ask Mrs Merkel how she feels about being surveyed by the Five Eyes alliance: of the "English-speaking" intelligence agencies.
English-speaking is a very different thing to being culturally English. The terms Anglo-Saxon and Anglosphere surely refer to linguistics and institutions, not culture.
Not purely. I think the definitions of such little used terms are fairly fluid, and some people will use them in a purely linguistic sense, and others will mean to imply a deeper cultural tie.
Max Keiser @maxkeiser Dear Ukraine, America loves to help start wars, but it never sticks around and will leave you for dead. Be careful what you pray for...
The people who will take the Russians on IF it comes to armed confrontation of some kind are the Ukrainians themselves. If the West wants to give Russia a hard time it a) isolates Russia as much as it can economically and b) it supports the Ukrainians and indirectly the almost certain associated guerilla groups who would spring up in such a prolonged armed situation with the wherewithal.
Secondly its not about how big Russia's military is its about its its ability to sustain expeditionary warfare on territory where it does not have an absolute land border. This is severely limited in proportion to its armed forces size. Crimea has nothing but water round one way, no matter how narrow and the Ukrainian border on the other.
Looking at the facts the Russians took 6 days alone to put in a total of around 6000 additional troops in an area that they a) had a port in, b) isn't far from their border and c) they had unchallenged access to. I can tell you now that was a reasonable stretch to get what were rapid reaction forces who were already gearing up to move and by their nature are designed to in totality within 72 hours.
The Russian bear is over estimated in its conventional force strength. Forget the nuclear issue its simply not going to come to that. The Ukrainians alone have the numbers to make Russian life a misery. This of course, forgets about Tatars and their traditional friends in Turkey and other parties within the Ukraine who are perfectly willing to go launch some slow bleed activity against the Russians in Crimea.
The critical question is not that the West will send boats to make Boris think again. They are:
1. How long Russian troops stay on the streets. It sis likely they will want them offside soon enough if they can and hand over to local security forces and then return to barracks as a 'dont get any ideas' force. If they get them offside fast the West will probably mysteriously forget the whole thing.
2. Whether the West will actually do anything in practice at all other than talk. Remember its Obama, a man frankly who if you wanted to mug someone would be a good target because he'd not bother fighting back.
3. What the Ukrainians do.
"The people who will take the Russians on IF it comes to armed confrontation of some kind are the Ukrainians themselves."
And the "Russian" side in that conflict will be current Ukraine citizens also - with Russian support.
The people who will take the Russians on IF it comes to armed confrontation of some kind are the Ukrainians themselves. If the West wants to give Russia a hard time it a) isolates Russia as much as it can economically and b) it supports the Ukrainians and indirectly the almost certain associated guerilla groups who would spring up in such a prolonged armed situation with the wherewithal.
Secondly its not about how big Russia's military is its about its its ability to sustain expeditionary warfare on territory where it does not have an absolute land border. This is severely limited in proportion to its armed forces size. Crimea has nothing but water round one way, no matter how narrow and the Ukrainian border on the other.
Looking at the facts the Russians took 6 days alone to put in a total of around 6000 additional troops in an area that they a) had a port in, b) isn't far from their border and c) they had unchallenged access to. I can tell you now that was a reasonable stretch to get what were rapid reaction forces who were already gearing up to move and by their nature are designed to in totality within 72 hours.
The Russian bear is over estimated in its conventional force strength. Forget the nuclear issue its simply not going to come to that. The Ukrainians alone have the numbers to make Russian life a misery. This of course, forgets about Tatars and their traditional friends in Turkey and other parties within the Ukraine who are perfectly willing to go launch some slow bleed activity against the Russians in Crimea.
The critical question is not that the West will send boats to make Boris think again. They are:
1. How long Russian troops stay on the streets. It sis likely they will want them offside soon enough if they can and hand over to local security forces and then return to barracks as a 'dont get any ideas' force. If they get them offside fast the West will probably mysteriously forget the whole thing.
2. Whether the West will actually do anything in practice at all other than talk. Remember its Obama, a man frankly who if you wanted to mug someone would be a good target because he'd not bother fighting back.
3. What the Ukrainians do.
Sadly, 2) looks like the key.
Some cogent analysis.
No analysis needed, US&UK will huff and puff, at minimum Russia will keep Crimea and if the new Kiev Dictatorship fancy their chances , then it will be a severe doing, despite Fluffy's fear of Russia's amphibious capabilities.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've no doubt the Yes campaign is better organised and better funded, and, judging by the cybernats on here, they have more passion and commitment - after all they have a dazzling prize to attain - their FREEDOM. That is a much more positive rallying cry than "Please don't screw my pension".
However, the Yes campaign needs all this (and, I would say, a lot more), because ranged against them is most of the Scottish Establishment, all the British establishment, the vast majority of the media (especially the BBC), and much of big business, especially big business in Scotland. That is an enormous firepower bearing down on you, and you are charging uphill, like the Ulstermen at Thiepval.
I think you are doing well, in the circumstances, and you have a chance (thanks to that passion and commitment). But as of this moment you are still most likely to lose.
Regrettably I don't agree. Your first paragraph is key for me, and despite the hardship of facing the full might of the establishment as per your second paragraph, I think that optimism, passion and sense of apathy or dread on the other side will lead to a Yes victory in the end.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
You're EIGHTEEN points behind in the latest YouGov indypoll.
No: 53 Yes: 35
Funnily enough that is practically identical to a YouGov poll taken in March 2011, which showed this:
No: 51 Yes: 33
Yes were EIGHTEEN points behind then, too.
The bizarre thing is just how little the polls have moved, not how much. All that sound and fury from both camps, all these devastating blows and brilliant coups, all these blunders and wonders from the SNP and Better Together, and the polls are still gently orbiting around an average 15 point lead to No.
I doubt the polls will change much. On both sides the people who have made up there minds wont change them. If you speak to people who aren't particularly involved in the campaign and don't feel strongly either way they're just fed up at the though of 7 more months of the campaign.
Nate Silver has often pointed out that most election results are predictable, although the parties and media have a vested interest in portraying them as unpredictable. This one looks as if it's predictable.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
I don't think that any of those countries would recognise themselves as being culturally "English" in any way. They all have strong British connections, but that is very, very different.
And Irish!
The idea that Canada was quintessentially English surprised me so much in view of what I have read in the past about it being a focus of Scottish emigration that I checked and indeed the Canadian census "ethnic origins" has English 21%, French 16%, Scots 15% and Irish 14%, after plain 'Canadian' 32% - the rest is Germans and so on down to and through Welsh at 1.4%. So Mr Observer is absolutely right at least for Canada.
English in the sense of being Anglophone, yes, but even then Canada has the biggest Scots Gaelic speaking population in the world.
And the Irish, of course. But I imagine that most Irish emigration to Australia and Canada, at least, took place when Ireland was an integral part of the UK.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I didn't say that everyone in the country saw themselves as culturally English, I just pointed out that the countries were *predominantly* English culture. Even if you concluded that the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not English in culture at all, the country would still be 85% English. (Well, maybe 75% once you take out the recent immigrants).
I am not sure I know what English culture is, as opposed to British culture.
Well, the Highlander clan system is an example of British culture that isn't English culture.
It long preceded unions of crowns and countries, was in decline from the 17th century, and utterly destroyed in 1746 by 'Britishness'.
Er, only if you think "Britishness" began in 1746. Given that the word "Britain" actually descends from the original P-Celtic "Pritani" or variants thereof - and was the way the proto-Celtic inhabitants of Britain described themselves, then, yes, the Celtic Highlander culture was very definitely "British".
Max Keiser @maxkeiser Dear Ukraine, America loves to help start wars, but it never sticks around and will leave you for dead. Be careful what you pray for...
Well except for the ones they stick around too long for.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've seen as much No as Yes activity in Edinburgh in terms of campaigners on the street to be fair, and (unsurprisingly) far more No campaigning in the Borders when I've been home. I also know a number of people working within Better Together so I'm basing my view on a lot more than polls. The campaign is well funded and well motivated as I'm sure the Yes side is. Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
Also if it's all plain sailing at Yes Scotland, how come all four of the original directors are no longer there?
"Major English powers" is just another way of saying "the Anglosphere" or the "English speaking world" or what the French call "les Anglo-Saxons".
All these terms are perfectly valid. And politically significant. Ask Mrs Merkel how she feels about being surveyed by the Five Eyes alliance: of the "English-speaking" intelligence agencies.
English-speaking is a very different thing to being culturally English. The terms Anglo-Saxon and Anglosphere surely refer to linguistics and institutions, not culture.
Not purely. I think the definitions of such little used terms are fairly fluid, and some people will use them in a purely linguistic sense, and others will mean to imply a deeper cultural tie.
The French use the "little used term" *les Anglo Saxons* all the time. It gets 4.7m hits on Google.
They definitely take the view that the English powers work together. Against them.
OK, off to do some parenting. Hoots and anon.
Comparitively little used I mean, the French I know use such terms all the time, and there are probably others, but within the anglosphere ordinary people? Not as common.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've no doubt the Yes campaign is better organised and better funded, and, judging by the cybernats on here, they have more passion and commitment - after all they have a dazzling prize to attain - their FREEDOM. That is a much more positive rallying cry than "Please don't screw my pension".
However, the Yes campaign needs all this (and, I would say, a lot more), because ranged against them is most of the Scottish Establishment, all the British establishment, the vast majority of the media (especially the BBC), and much of big business, especially big business in Scotland. That is an enormous firepower bearing down on you, and you are charging uphill, like the Ulstermen at Thiepval.
I think you are doing well, in the circumstances, and you have a chance (thanks to that passion and commitment). But as of this moment you are still most likely to lose.
A fair assessment but obviously we disagree on the outcome. The people who are never polled are massively for YES, so it looks like another shock is in the offing. I noticed Rupert Soames jumping ship at Agrekko and taking a nice job back home with Serco. Could he have been the first unionist rat to desert the sinking ship, NO are doomed.
"Major English powers" is just another way of saying "the Anglosphere" or the "English speaking world" or what the French call "les Anglo-Saxons".
All these terms are perfectly valid. And politically significant. Ask Mrs Merkel how she feels about being surveyed by the Five Eyes alliance: of the "English-speaking" intelligence agencies.
English-speaking is a very different thing to being culturally English. The terms Anglo-Saxon and Anglosphere surely refer to linguistics and institutions, not culture.
Not purely. I think the definitions of such little used terms are fairly fluid, and some people will use them in a purely linguistic sense, and others will mean to imply a deeper cultural tie.
I hear Anglo-Saxon all the time when I go to Europe for business. Our common law, for example, is often called Anglo-Saxon law in civil law countries - ie, in the whole of continental Europe, while the US and UK are often called the Anglo-Saxons when acting in tandem It's los Anglosajones in Spanish.
La angloesfera o mundo anglosajón, nombre en recuerdo de los anglosajones, hace referencia al amalgamado de pueblos que ocuparon las Islas Británicas a mediados del siglo V, hoy día se conoce así al conjunto de países de habla inglesa (anglofonía), antiguas colonias británicas, que comparten rasgos comunes en cuanto a población, usos legales, sistema económico e intereses geopolíticos.
Todos ellos comparten sistemas de gobierno democráticos, economías de mercado claramente más liberales que el sistema europeo de Estado del bienestar y, naturalmente, el derecho anglosajón. Como la madre patria, son Estados mayoritariamente protestantes cristianos aunque en el caso de los Estados Unidos haya gran número de católicos y en Canadá e Irlanda estos sean mayoría. Se trata de naciones muy desarrolladas cuya preponderancia mundial, especialmente la de los Estados Unidos, explica la continuada hegemonía del idioma inglés, pese a no ser ni la tradicional lengua diplomática ni la más extendida por número de hablantes. Los países a los que comúnmente se refiere esta denominación son: Australia. Canadá (excepto Quebec). Estados Unidos. Irlanda. Nueva Zelanda. Reino Unido.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I didn't say that everyone in the country saw themselves as culturally English, I just pointed out that the countries were *predominantly* English culture. Even if you concluded that the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not English in culture at all, the country would still be 85% English. (Well, maybe 75% once you take out the recent immigrants).
I am not sure I know what English culture is, as opposed to British culture.
Well, the Highlander clan system is an example of British culture that isn't English culture.
The clan system long preceded unions of crowns and countries, was in decline from the 17th century, and utterly destroyed in 1746 by 'Britishness'.
All fair points. In that sentence I was using the term "British" to mean "from the island of Britain". But you're right that the term "British" is far too tied up with the British state. That was why I used English in the first place.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
That famous United Kingdom of England
I just love the idea of all those people with Ulster Scots, Scots and Irish ancestry in the US, Canada and Australia seeing themselves as culturally English; let alone those living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I didn't say that everyone in the country saw themselves as culturally English, I just pointed out that the countries were *predominantly* English culture. Even if you concluded that the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not English in culture at all, the country would still be 85% English. (Well, maybe 75% once you take out the recent immigrants).
I am not sure I know what English culture is, as opposed to British culture.
Well, the Highlander clan system is an example of British culture that isn't English culture.
It long preceded unions of crowns and countries, was in decline from the 17th century, and utterly destroyed in 1746 by 'Britishness'.
Er, only if you think "Britishness" began in 1746. Given that the word "Britain" actually descends from the original P-Celtic "Pritani" or variants thereof - and was the way the proto-Celtic inhabitants of Britain described themselves, then, yes, the Celtic Highlander culture was very definitely "British".
Yes, but only in the sense that the British were the original Brits - and ended up in Cornwall, Cumbria [cf. Cymraeg], Brittany, Wales, etc. when the Anglo-S's conquered what became the Lost Lands (and before the Danes and Vikings got a look-in). St Patrick was the archetypal Brit, after all. And look at Gildas, scribbling his 'On the fall; and conquest of Britain' ...
@chrisdeerin: I see they're already training up indy Scotland defence force. Don't know if they'll scare the enemy, but by God... http://t.co/9S8COoENac
"Major English powers" is just another way of saying "the Anglosphere" or the "English speaking world" or what the French call "les Anglo-Saxons".
All these terms are perfectly valid. And politically significant. Ask Mrs Merkel how she feels about being surveyed by the Five Eyes alliance: of the "English-speaking" intelligence agencies.
English-speaking is a very different thing to being culturally English. The terms Anglo-Saxon and Anglosphere surely refer to linguistics and institutions, not culture.
Not purely. I think the definitions of such little used terms are fairly fluid, and some people will use them in a purely linguistic sense, and others will mean to imply a deeper cultural tie.
I hear Anglo-Saxon all the time when I go to Europe for business. Our common law, for example, is often called Anglo-Saxon law in civil law countries - ie, in the whole of continental Europe, while the Us and UK are often called the Anglo-Saxons when acting in shorthand. Los Anglosajones in Spanish
I should have clarified that when I meant the term anglosphere and equivalents were little used, I meant within the anglosphere itself, in the sense of common useage by, say, English people talking about our english speaking allies and so the definition is not as fixed as it might be. I am aware anglo-saxon and other terms are often used as a cultural descriptor by others, that is true - I came in late to the discussion, so did not initially know what has sparked it was that type of point.
You are a little in error, on the subject of kilts. The modern form (and most or all of traditional tartans) were invented by an English businessman, exploiting the Victorian fashion for things Scottish:
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
Right, but the mythology emphasises them as part of an ancient Celtic tradition which is the heart of the true Scotland. The reality is that the Scottish state was controlled by the Inglis lowlanders, who had more in common with their counterparts south of the border than they ever did with the clans. You just need to compare accurate images of the battle of Stirling Bridge, where the armies looked fairly similar, to the ridiculous fabrication that was the Braveheart movie.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
I don't think that any of those countries would recognise themselves as being culturally "English" in any way. They all have strong British connections, but that is very, very different.
And Irish!
The idea that Canada was quintessentially English surprised me so much in view of what I have read in the past about it being a focus of Scottish emigration that I checked and indeed the Canadian census "ethnic origins" has English 21%, French 16%, Scots 15% and Irish 14%, after plain 'Canadian' 32% - the rest is Germans and so on down to and through Welsh at 1.4%. So Mr Observer is absolutely right at least for Canada.
English in the sense of being Anglophone, yes, but even then Canada has the biggest Scots Gaelic speaking population in the world.
And the Irish, of course. But I imagine that most Irish emigration to Australia and Canada, at least, took place when Ireland was an integral part of the UK.
After 1800, yes, quite so, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - so even then there was still a distinction, I suppose. Not least in the minds of some of the emigrants.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've no doubt the Yes campaign is better organised and better funded, and, judging by the cybernats on here, they have more passion and commitment - after all they have a dazzling prize to attain - their FREEDOM. That is a much more positive rallying cry than "Please don't screw my pension".
However, the Yes campaign needs all this (and, I would say, a lot more), because ranged against them is most of the Scottish Establishment, all the British establishment, the vast majority of the media (especially the BBC), and much of big business, especially big business in Scotland. That is an enormous firepower bearing down on you, and you are charging uphill, like the Ulstermen at Thiepval.
I think you are doing well, in the circumstances, and you have a chance (thanks to that passion and commitment). But as of this moment you are still most likely to lose.
A fair assessment but obviously we disagree on the outcome. The people who are never polled are massively for YES, so it looks like another shock is in the offing. I noticed Rupert Soames jumping ship at Agrekko and taking a nice job back home with Serco. Could he have been the first unionist rat to desert the sinking ship, NO are doomed.
Perhaps I missed something which explains this, but who are the people who are massively for Yes who are never polled?
The bizarre thing is just how little the polls have moved, not how much. All that sound and fury from both camps, all these devastating blows and brilliant coups, all these blunders and wonders from the SNP and Better Together, and the polls are still gently orbiting around an average 15 point lead to No.
If the next Ipsos MORI poll shows a significant drop in the No lead, we can probably call that definitive. The days of the No camp being 30+ points ahead seem to be well and truly over. Five out of the seven British Polling Council members polling on the independence referendum now put the required swing for Yes at just 5-6%. Looks like Wings pollsters Panelbase were at the cutting edge again after all.
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls headline figures :
Sep 2013 - 20.2% Sep 2013 - 20.0% Sep 2013 - 18.4% Oct 2013 - 17.9% Oct 2013 - 17.5% Oct 2013 - 17.4% Nov 2013 - 17.5% Dec 2013 - 17.1% Dec 2013 - 16.3% Dec 2013 - 16.2% Dec 2013 - 15.8% Jan 2014 - 14.2% Jan 2014 - 14.8% Feb 2014 - 14.8% Feb 2014 - 14.7% Feb 2014 - 15.1% Feb 2014 - 13.6% Feb 2014 - 14.0%
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
And that proves what? I know loads of people who haven't been contacted by either side. There are certain demographic groups, and people in certain regions that will be targeted more than others which is common sense.
If it makes you feel better to kid yourself that the No campaign are doing nothing, that the organisation is a shambles and that we're taking the result for granted, fair play.
Yes, but only in the sense that the British were the original Brits - and ended up in Cornwall, Cumbria [cf. Cymraeg], Brittany, Wales, etc. when the Anglo-S's conquered what became the Lost Lands (and before the Danes and Vikings got a look-in). St Patrick was the archetypal Brit, after all. And look at Gildas, scribbling his 'On the fall; and conquest of Britain' ...
You forget the Escoti. Plastic people from a Disney nation....
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
The classic No would be an Edinburgh bank manager (!) but is there any point in targeting such a person? They'd be better going for the likely don't knows, and for these reasons I would have expected to see far more No activity around here than I have seen given the local demographics. So far, early days yet, precisely zero, a few leaflets on the Labour party stand at the annual community fair, as opposed to about 2-3 public meetings and some shopping precinct tables by the Yes people. On the leaflet/mailing front, I've not disclosed my views outwith this site but have had a ratio of about 6 Yes to two No so far ... but we have half a year to go ...
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've seen as much No as Yes activity in Edinburgh in terms of campaigners on the street to be fair, and (unsurprisingly) far more No campaigning in the Borders when I've been home. I also know a number of people working within Better Together so I'm basing my view on a lot more than polls. The campaign is well funded and well motivated as I'm sure the Yes side is. Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
Also if it's all plain sailing at Yes Scotland, how come all four of the original directors are no longer there?
First thing re Borders, surprise surprise that is not the hotbed of YES support, full of rich Tory farmers etc. I have a keen interest in the referendum and yet hardly ever come across anything on NO outside of the BBC or London newspapers , rather strange. I see and read a multitude of things by YES campaigners etc and see meetings with large audiences etc. It is a case of state propaganda organisation versus a people's organisation. We shall see how it ends, as we get closer , the fact of thousands of local organisations will be key. The BBC etc will have to curb their bias and so it will be down to local word of mouth. I am not taking opinion of any YES or NO campaigns , methinks your friends in BT just do not want to admit they are in trouble.
Re YES Directors, it was clearly stated that they were there to build local groups throughout Scotland, that job is done and they have moved on. BT on the other hand are just paid Labour lackeys and will milk BT till the bitter end
The use of the term Great Britain began in 1603, I believe. But we have no real way of knowing what notions of nationality most people had back then, as they were usually illiterate peasants whose views no-one was very interested in recording. My guess is that most people felt most tied to the locality in which they lived and only had very vague notions of anything wider, let alone any real loyalty to it (except, perhaps, to the monarch). A broader view of "nationality" really only started to emerge in the 18th and 19th century, as mass education began to take a hold.
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
And that proves what? I know loads of people who haven't been contacted by either side. There are certain demographic groups, and people in certain regions that will be targeted more than others which is common sense.
If it makes you feel better to kid yourself that the No campaign are doing nothing, that the organisation is a shambles and that we're taking the result for granted, fair play.
Touchy! I was asking a genuine question. What iyo are the demographic groups and certain regions, or is that top secret?
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
I don't think that any of those countries would recognise themselves as being culturally "English" in any way. They all have strong British connections, but that is very, very different.
And Irish!
The idea that Canada was quintessentially English surprised me so much in view of what I have read in the past about it being a focus of Scottish emigration that I checked and indeed the Canadian census "ethnic origins" has English 21%, French 16%, Scots 15% and Irish 14%, after plain 'Canadian' 32% - the rest is Germans and so on down to and through Welsh at 1.4%. So Mr Observer is absolutely right at least for Canada.
English in the sense of being Anglophone, yes, but even then Canada has the biggest Scots Gaelic speaking population in the world.
And the Irish, of course. But I imagine that most Irish emigration to Australia and Canada, at least, took place when Ireland was an integral part of the UK.
After 1800, yes, quite so, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - so even then there was still a distinction, I suppose. Not least in the minds of some of the emigrants.
For sure. Though Irishness was much more about Catholicism than nationality per se.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
I wouldn't worry about SeanT. He's rich enough to pay for expensive lawyers.
You are a little in error, on the subject of kilts. The modern form (and most or all of traditional tartans) were invented by an English businessman, exploiting the Victorian fashion for things Scottish:
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
Right, but the mythology emphasises them as part of an ancient Celtic tradition which is the heart of the true Scotland. The reality is that the Scottish state was controlled by the Inglis lowlanders, who had more in common with their counterparts south of the border than they ever did with the clans. You just need to compare accurate images of the battle of Stirling Bridge, where the armies looked fairly similar, to the ridiculous fabrication that was the Braveheart movie.
But what mythology, when and who for, outside the tourists? Braveheart the film was by an Australian and was no more a formal history than Blind Harry's ballad on the same theme (for much the same reasons of entertainment, adapted to the technology of the period - in fact I have a feeling it might have been based on the ballad). Most Scots are well aware that their country is far more diverse than a Victorian perception of butch but tamed Highlanders in the service of HM Queen Victoria. Even the Victorian army had southern Scots such as the Cameronians and the Borderers. And none of this is in any case relevant to the current political debate.
BTW the lowlanders did not all speak Scots-Inglis either for a long time: there are plenty of non-Inglis placenames in my impeccably Lowlander part of the country.
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
And that proves what? I know loads of people who haven't been contacted by either side. There are certain demographic groups, and people in certain regions that will be targeted more than others which is common sense.
If it makes you feel better to kid yourself that the No campaign are doing nothing, that the organisation is a shambles and that we're taking the result for granted, fair play.
Touchy! I was asking a genuine question. What iyo are the demographic groups and certain regions, or is that top secret?
Touchy? I hardly think I'm the most thin skinned of our Scottish contributors!
I think everyone is aware that the key group are Labour voters in West Central Scotland. It's the only group that shows any sign of changing it's mind.
Even a cursory glance at the indyref events going on now and in the near future tells the story loud and clear.
Then again just a few more BBC interview spots with blinky Darling will fix that for the No campaign obviously, so why on earth should they be concerned? A few of the scotish tory surger old biddies can always have a jumble sale to fill the gap in funding too. Problem solved.
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The major economic and military powers of predominantly English culture: mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, but to a lesser extent Canada and Australia.
I don't think that any of those countries would recognise themselves as being culturally "English" in any way. They all have strong British connections, but that is very, very different.
And Irish!
The idea that Canada was quintessentially English surprised me so much in view of what I have read in the past about it being a focus of Scottish emigration that I checked and indeed the Canadian census "ethnic origins" has English 21%, French 16%, Scots 15% and Irish 14%, after plain 'Canadian' 32% - the rest is Germans and so on down to and through Welsh at 1.4%. So Mr Observer is absolutely right at least for Canada.
English in the sense of being Anglophone, yes, but even then Canada has the biggest Scots Gaelic speaking population in the world.
And the Irish, of course. But I imagine that most Irish emigration to Australia and Canada, at least, took place when Ireland was an integral part of the UK.
After 1800, yes, quite so, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - so even then there was still a distinction, I suppose. Not least in the minds of some of the emigrants.
For sure. Though Irishness was much more about Catholicism than nationality per se.
The bad news is that after raising a nice (literally) round number in 2 days, it was pulled.
But earlier, pb's Greek chorus of yellow tory cyberpratts were telling us that the Yes campaign is a shambles.
Calling the No campaign a shambles at this point is to insult your ordinary hard-working shambles.
LOL
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
A fair assessment but obviously we disagree on the outcome. The people who are never polled are massively for YES, so it looks like another shock is in the offing. I noticed Rupert Soames jumping ship at Agrekko and taking a nice job back home with Serco. Could he have been the first unionist rat to desert the sinking ship, NO are doomed.
Perhaps I missed something which explains this, but who are the people who are massively for Yes who are never polled?
the unemployed , disenfranchised etc etc , people who are lucky if registered to vote , do not sign up to any polling etc. Reckoned to be 1 million at least. RIC are working hard in these areas to get people signed up and ensure they vote. Anecdote from people canvassing last week. YES = 50% , NO = 16% , DK's = 34% BT are only working via BBC and MSM , they are missing vast swathes of people. They have no feet on the streets, almost purely internet campaign.
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
And that proves what? I know loads of people who haven't been contacted by either side. There are certain demographic groups, and people in certain regions that will be targeted more than others which is common sense.
If it makes you feel better to kid yourself that the No campaign are doing nothing, that the organisation is a shambles and that we're taking the result for granted, fair play.
Touchy! I was asking a genuine question. What iyo are the demographic groups and certain regions, or is that top secret?
TUD, NO do not like to be asked questions, scripted press reports only.
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
The classic No would be an Edinburgh bank manager (!) but is there any point in targeting such a person? They'd be better going for the likely don't knows, and for these reasons I would have expected to see far more No activity around here than I have seen given the local demographics. So far, early days yet, precisely zero, a few leaflets on the Labour party stand at the annual community fair, as opposed to about 2-3 public meetings and some shopping precinct tables by the Yes people. On the leaflet/mailing front, I've not disclosed my views outwith this site but have had a ratio of about 6 Yes to two No so far ... but we have half a year to go ...
As you say, they concentrate on people like MaxPB , DavidL , and kid themselves they are in the lead.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
I wouldn't worry about SeanT. He's rich enough to pay for expensive lawyers.
It's the fact it's been a concerted effort by certain left-wing posters to imply others are paedophiles. It was done to me, it was done to iSam and now it's being done to SeanT. It's a rather ugly tactic that speaks to the moral depravity of those doing it, and it makes the site a much more unpleasant experience.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
Mick, how dare you suggest someone plays with Lego.
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO. Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've seen as much No as Yes activity in Edinburgh in terms of campaigners on the street to be fair, and (unsurprisingly) far more No campaigning in the Borders when I've been home. I also know a number of people working within Better Together so I'm basing my view on a lot more than polls. The campaign is well funded and well motivated as I'm sure the Yes side is. Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
Also if it's all plain sailing at Yes Scotland, how come all four of the original directors are no longer there?
First thing re Borders, surprise surprise that is not the hotbed of YES support, full of rich Tory farmers etc. I have a keen interest in the referendum and yet hardly ever come across anything on NO outside of the BBC or London newspapers , rather strange. I see and read a multitude of things by YES campaigners etc and see meetings with large audiences etc. It is a case of state propaganda organisation versus a people's organisation. We shall see how it ends, as we get closer , the fact of thousands of local organisations will be key. The BBC etc will have to curb their bias and so it will be down to local word of mouth. I am not taking opinion of any YES or NO campaigns , methinks your friends in BT just do not want to admit they are in trouble.
Re YES Directors, it was clearly stated that they were there to build local groups throughout Scotland, that job is done and they have moved on. BT on the other hand are just paid Labour lackeys and will milk BT till the bitter end
I did say 'unsurprisingly' about the Borders to be fair! Along with Dumfries & Galloway I suspect that's where the biggest No vote in percentage terms will be received. It'll be interesting to see the extent of the regional differences across the country.
You are a little in error, on the subject of kilts. The modern form (and most or all of traditional tartans) were invented by an English businessman, exploiting the Victorian fashion for things Scottish:
your emotional hatred of the major English powers blinds you to tha
Wot's the 'major English powers' then?
The mask always slips, they cannot help themselves.
Have I wounded your pride again? Oh, dear. I'm sorry I raised the inconvenient fact that the USA and the UK are predominantly English-speaking, culturally English countries.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
Right, but the mythology emphasises them as part of an ancient Celtic tradition which is the heart of the true Scotland. The reality is that the Scottish state was controlled by the Inglis lowlanders, who had more in common with their counterparts south of the border than they ever did with the clans. You just need to compare accurate images of the battle of Stirling Bridge, where the armies looked fairly similar, to the ridiculous fabrication that was the Braveheart movie.
But what mythology, when and who for, outside the tourists? Braveheart the film was by an Australian and was no more a formal history than Blind Harry's ballad on the same theme (for much the same reasons of entertainment, adapted to the technology of the period - in fact I have a feeling it might have been based on the ballad). Most Scots are well aware that their country is far more diverse than a Victorian perception of butch but tamed Highlanders in the service of HM Queen Victoria. Even the Victorian army had southern Scots such as the Cameronians and the Borderers. And none of this is in any case relevant to the current political debate.
BTW the lowlanders did not all speak Scots-Inglis either for a long time: there are plenty of non-Inglis placenames in my impeccably Lowlander part of the country.
The non-Inglish place names are generally Pictish though, I understand, which is a far older culture that died out far before the early modern period. Although they'd presumably have a stronger case to be "British" than either the Scots-Inglish or the Gaels.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
Here we go. The most pompous and irony free poster on here starts shrieking VICTIM! again.
He was pulled up by various people on the left and right for his eccentric ecstatic shrieking about "Lego the Movie". FACT. He seems PROUD of his sex tourism and hardly shrinks away from mentioning it on here. FACT.
Doesn't take much for a sensitive little hate-filled muslim and ethnic obsessive like yourself to start screaming for the Moderators and demanding an apology does it? I suggest you flounce off again if you think only you should be allowed to deal out the abuse because you certainly didn't get an apology last time and won't get one this time.
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
The classic No would be an Edinburgh bank manager (!) but is there any point in targeting such a person? They'd be better going for the likely don't knows, and for these reasons I would have expected to see far more No activity around here than I have seen given the local demographics. So far, early days yet, precisely zero, a few leaflets on the Labour party stand at the annual community fair, as opposed to about 2-3 public meetings and some shopping precinct tables by the Yes people. On the leaflet/mailing front, I've not disclosed my views outwith this site but have had a ratio of about 6 Yes to two No so far ... but we have half a year to go ...
As you say, they concentrate on people like MaxPB , DavidL , and kid themselves they are in the lead.
Er, except they ARE currently in the lead and by a comfortable margin.
@GuidoFawkes: McCluskey on Falkirk: "my union did nothing wrong." Gets a standing ovation for Steve Deans.
@GuidoFawkes: McCluskey finishes with message to Labour leadership: "this is our party and we're going nowhere". Miliband doesn't exactly look delighted.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
I wouldn't worry about SeanT. He's rich enough to pay for expensive lawyers.
It's the fact it's been a concerted effort by certain left-wing posters to imply others are paedophiles. It was done to me, it was done to iSam and now it's being done to SeanT. It's a rather ugly tactic that speaks to the moral depravity of those doing it, and it makes the site a much more unpleasant experience.
what planet are you on , how can saying he likes the LEGO movie be construed in your crazy mind as accusing someone of moral depravity and being a paedophile.
@Malcolmg - It's a bit of a push to describe the Borders as wealthy, isn't it? I thought average income there was well done on the overall Scotland amount.
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
And that proves what? I know loads of people who haven't been contacted by either side. There are certain demographic groups, and people in certain regions that will be targeted more than others which is common sense.
If it makes you feel better to kid yourself that the No campaign are doing nothing, that the organisation is a shambles and that we're taking the result for granted, fair play.
Touchy! I was asking a genuine question. What iyo are the demographic groups and certain regions, or is that top secret?
Touchy? I hardly think I'm the most thin skinned of our Scottish contributors!
I think everyone is aware that the key group are Labour voters in West Central Scotland. It's the only group that shows any sign of changing it's mind.
There are, of course, also Labour voters elsewhere - as in Fife and West and East Lothian for instance, but with that proviso I suspect you are pretty much right. The Wings over Scotland Panelbase poll last year identified the Labour voters as a key DK demographic - presumably they weren't happy to vote for the status quo but had not, then, made the plunge. What was so surprising was that given the other questions asked, these DKs were politically to the left of the SNP and therefore very much to the left of New Labour sensu Mr Miliband and (depending on her utterances of the day) Ms Lamont. Hence you can see the dilemma facing Labour - if they are openly in bed with the Tories and LDs (as Mr Balls did the other week), yet the alternative is not to fight for the union at all ... that is, I think, one reason why things have been so quiet - another being the reluctance of individual MPs and MSPs and activisits to face the dilemma. But we are not in the last days yet.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
I wouldn't worry about SeanT. He's rich enough to pay for expensive lawyers.
It's the fact it's been a concerted effort by certain left-wing posters to imply others are paedophiles. It was done to me, it was done to iSam and now it's being done to SeanT. It's a rather ugly tactic that speaks to the moral depravity of those doing it, and it makes the site a much more unpleasant experience.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
Here we go. The most pompous and irony free poster on here starts shrieking VICTIM! again.
He was pulled up by various people on the left and right for his eccentric ecstatic shrieking about "Lego the Movie". FACT. He seems PROUD of his sex tourism and hardly shrinks away from mentioning it on here. FACT.
Doesn't take much for a sensitive little muslim and ethnic baiter like yourself to start screaming for the Moderators and demanding an apology does it? I suggest you flounce off again if you think only you should be allowed to deal out the abuse because you certainly didn't get an apology last time and won't get one this time.
You really are too low IQ to be able to follow a point, aren't you? I'd usually tell people just to go back and read my post again, but considering your sub-par intelligence, I'll explain it to you. I was not criticising the allegation of being a sex tourist, and I was not criticising mocking for enjoying the Lego movie. What I was criticising was your deliberate use of the term "kiddy movie", with all the overtones that implies, with deliberate sexual imagery and connecting it in the same sentence with the sex tourism. It's an ugly tactic from a person with an ugly soul. This is the reason why other posters think of you the way they do.
The sad thing about the "Yes" campaign [for Scotland] is that they 'cannae' win an argument against the rationalists that are their English supporters. Truely a sorry troop....
@joncraig: Blockbuster speech from Len McCluskey at Labour special conference, defending Unite in Falkirk. I watched Ed Miliband, on platform, wincing!
Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
As a matter of interest, who are BT's target market? I know Yes, No & undecideds, and to date 2 of them have received a BT leaflet, that's it.
The classic No would be an Edinburgh bank manager (!) but is there any point in targeting such a person? They'd be better going for the likely don't knows, and for these reasons I would have expected to see far more No activity around here than I have seen given the local demographics. So far, early days yet, precisely zero, a few leaflets on the Labour party stand at the annual community fair, as opposed to about 2-3 public meetings and some shopping precinct tables by the Yes people. On the leaflet/mailing front, I've not disclosed my views outwith this site but have had a ratio of about 6 Yes to two No so far ... but we have half a year to go ...
As you say, they concentrate on people like MaxPB , DavidL , and kid themselves they are in the lead.
Er, except they ARE currently in the lead and by a comfortable margin.
Depends on how you measure comfortable. Real campaign not started yet and lead reduced by 15% over last 6 months or so with 6 months to go and only a 6-7% swing needed is not my idea of comfortable.
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
Referring to him as "gushing ecstatically" about a "kiddy movie" in the same sentence as talking about "sex tourism". You're not even subtle about the way you try to impugn people between the lines.
I wouldn't worry about SeanT. He's rich enough to pay for expensive lawyers.
It's the fact it's been a concerted effort by certain left-wing posters to imply others are paedophiles. It was done to me, it was done to iSam and now it's being done to SeanT. It's a rather ugly tactic that speaks to the moral depravity of those doing it, and it makes the site a much more unpleasant experience.
what planet are you on , how can saying he likes the LEGO movie be construed in your crazy mind as accusing someone of moral depravity and being a paedophile.
He seems amusingly unaware of all the other people who were laughing at SeanT over that. It's that kind of paranoia that leads to 'eccentrics' thinking muslims are everywhere, sharia law is just around the corner because the English language is under threat and they are banning christmas! or some such Daily Mail hate-filled imbecility
Comments
1.Wall Street Journal @WSJ 7m
Breaking: Russia's Black Sea fleet: cooperating with Crimea authorities on security of fleet facilities http://on.wsj.com/1oOslWm
2.Wall Street Journal @WSJ 52s
Breaking: Russia parliament asks Putin to 'use all available means to protect' Crimea population http://on.wsj.com/1oOslWm
Bets that Obo won't move a muscle to counter Russian moves.
Well, this will really upset you: even Scotland is culturally Anglic. For all the mythology around kilts and bagpipes, the state was formed by the "Inglis" in the lowlands.
To be fair some some NeoCon halfwits were shrieking about Obama not responding as he was responding. However much of a mess it is right now you can be absolutely certain that turning the likes of Blair and the NeoCons loose on it would make it far, far worse.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
ps. You thinking England = UK has no bearing on my pride. I am Scottish and happy with that.
People have made that mistake before, and come off worse...
The Crimean crisis is secondary to the economic problems of Ukraine. The per capita GDP is only $4000, compared to $18 000 in Russia, though fifteen years ago they were similar.
The Ukranian revolt has more in common with the arab spring than anything else, and while the toppled dictators needed to go, the opposition has more than a few nasty elements. This is Syria in Russias front yard. I can see that protecting their interests in Crimea is wise, and we need to be wiser in response than in the arab spring.
Revolutions rarely produce good governments, though paradoxically failed revolutions often lead to concessions and progress. Either that or a bloodbath of tyranny, it can go either way.
Enough persecution of SoWo: We will need a proper historian to answer this question....
"Since Stalingrad has Russia ever undertaken a serious amphibious assault?" My guess is 'no'; (unless it was a local spat fueled by "McEwan's")....
Except the quote in the Twitter post wasn't said by Clegg. It's a shame that not only are you an unpleasant person that struggles with decent human interaction, you're also not very bright.
Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
Some cogent analysis.
The idea that Canada was quintessentially English surprised me so much in view of what I have read in the past about it being a focus of Scottish emigration that I checked and indeed the Canadian census "ethnic origins" has English 21%, French 16%, Scots 15% and Irish 14%, after plain 'Canadian' 32% - the rest is Germans and so on down to and through Welsh at 1.4%. So Mr Observer is absolutely right at least for Canada.
English in the sense of being Anglophone, yes, but even then Canada has the biggest Scots Gaelic speaking population in the world.
Except the quote in the Twitter post wasn't said by Clegg. It's a shame that not only are you an unpleasant person that struggles with decent human interaction, you're also not very bright.
Oh dear. You really are struggling now aren't you? Clegg was self-evidently dog-whistling against Gypsies. Go back to your muslim and 'ethnic' obsessions you sad little hate filled man. Your posts here are sub Daily Mail in their bloviating stupidity.
94% LD, 84% Con, 76% Lab. I know people say they are all the same, but that really seems to suggest I am incapable of choosing between them if my top there are the big three
Once did one of these and had the BNP come out as top(!), I think because I put strongly that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, but they're bottom for me this time. Surprised Greens and UKIP on 67% for me, as I cannot remember the last time I heard some radical left Green proposal I agreed with.
You are a little in error, on the subject of kilts. The modern form (and most or all of traditional tartans) were invented by an English businessman, exploiting the Victorian fashion for things Scottish:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rawlinson
Where did I state that? As an highly-paid NHS employee - don't snigger - I'd assume you are educated enough to read and - maybe - comprehend...?
My point is that the Russian "bear" is not a monolithic military machine. It relies on third-parties to maintain enough capability for basic national defence. The Russian armed-forces would not contemplate going toe-to-toe with China as they would lose in the numbers-war.
The West - and I mean ABCA(N), France and The Netherlands - are far ahead in the multiplex of capabilities that make expeditionary warfare a tool-of-diplomacy. Russia has an undemocratic, brutish thuggery that would only appeal to narrow-minds and other bullies....
So for the shipyards it is some hope or NO hope.
Max Keiser @maxkeiser
Dear Ukraine,
America loves to help start wars, but it never sticks around and will leave you for dead. Be careful what you pray for...
And the "Russian" side in that conflict will be current Ukraine citizens also - with Russian support.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/12/ukraine-2010-election.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/12/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png
The #BNP: hating immigrants and the English language in equal measure... pic.twitter.com/EqeY7Sm8xx
Yeah, history is littered with references to the British highland clan system.
Now we have peace in the Middle East thanks to Tony Blair as peace envoy ! Do if Ukraine & Russia want him ? #whatdoeshedo #wasteofspace
Also if it's all plain sailing at Yes Scotland, how come all four of the original directors are no longer there?
I noticed Rupert Soames jumping ship at Agrekko and taking a nice job back home with Serco.
Could he have been the first unionist rat to desert the sinking ship, NO are doomed.
La angloesfera o mundo anglosajón, nombre en recuerdo de los anglosajones, hace referencia al amalgamado de pueblos que ocuparon las Islas Británicas a mediados del siglo V, hoy día se conoce así al conjunto de países de habla inglesa (anglofonía), antiguas colonias británicas, que comparten rasgos comunes en cuanto a población, usos legales, sistema económico e intereses geopolíticos.
Todos ellos comparten sistemas de gobierno democráticos, economías de mercado claramente más liberales que el sistema europeo de Estado del bienestar y, naturalmente, el derecho anglosajón. Como la madre patria, son Estados mayoritariamente protestantes cristianos aunque en el caso de los Estados Unidos haya gran número de católicos y en Canadá e Irlanda estos sean mayoría. Se trata de naciones muy desarrolladas cuya preponderancia mundial, especialmente la de los Estados Unidos, explica la continuada hegemonía del idioma inglés, pese a no ser ni la tradicional lengua diplomática ni la más extendida por número de hablantes. Los países a los que comúnmente se refiere esta denominación son:
Australia.
Canadá (excepto Quebec).
Estados Unidos.
Irlanda.
Nueva Zelanda.
Reino Unido.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/convergence-keeps-converging/
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls headline figures :
Sep 2013 - 20.2%
Sep 2013 - 20.0%
Sep 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 17.9%
Oct 2013 - 17.5%
Oct 2013 - 17.4%
Nov 2013 - 17.5%
Dec 2013 - 17.1%
Dec 2013 - 16.3%
Dec 2013 - 16.2%
Dec 2013 - 15.8%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.7%
Feb 2014 - 15.1%
Feb 2014 - 13.6%
Feb 2014 - 14.0%
Ivan McKee http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/
Stick to sex tourism and gushing ECSTATICALLY about some kiddy movie. Even Gildas seems less bitter and obsessed with scottish matters than you and we all know why.
If it makes you feel better to kid yourself that the No campaign are doing nothing, that the organisation is a shambles and that we're taking the result for granted, fair play.
http://tinyurl.com/nht3llq
:[moderated]:
It is a case of state propaganda organisation versus a people's organisation.
We shall see how it ends, as we get closer , the fact of thousands of local organisations will be key. The BBC etc will have to curb their bias and so it will be down to local word of mouth.
I am not taking opinion of any YES or NO campaigns , methinks your friends in BT just do not want to admit they are in trouble.
Re YES Directors, it was clearly stated that they were there to build local groups throughout Scotland, that job is done and they have moved on. BT on the other hand are just paid Labour lackeys and will milk BT till the bitter end
What iyo are the demographic groups and certain regions, or is that top secret?
BTW the lowlanders did not all speak Scots-Inglis either for a long time: there are plenty of non-Inglis placenames in my impeccably Lowlander part of the country.
I think everyone is aware that the key group are Labour voters in West Central Scotland. It's the only group that shows any sign of changing it's mind.
Then again just a few more BBC interview spots with blinky Darling will fix that for the No campaign obviously, so why on earth should they be concerned? A few of the scotish tory surger old biddies can always have a jumble sale to fill the gap in funding too. Problem solved.
Mick I'm sure that you know just as well as me that Yes head-quarters isn't a particularly happy place at the moment.
And for a shambles the No campaign seems to be doing rather well if the polls are to be believed.
Max point us to any successful NO website, literature , etc. Kidding yourself on that you are doing well based on Yougov polls is rather foohardy. Can you name one event where the unionists were united in public to discuss their position. Have you any record of open public meetings by NO.
Have you any evidence of any local NO campaigns. I will not hold my breath.
I've seen as much No as Yes activity in Edinburgh in terms of campaigners on the street to be fair, and (unsurprisingly) far more No campaigning in the Borders when I've been home. I also know a number of people working within Better Together so I'm basing my view on a lot more than polls. The campaign is well funded and well motivated as I'm sure the Yes side is. Your probably not the No campaigns target market so don't be overly surprised if you don't see much of it!
Also if it's all plain sailing at Yes Scotland, how come all four of the original directors are no longer there?
First thing re Borders, surprise surprise that is not the hotbed of YES support, full of rich Tory farmers etc. I have a keen interest in the referendum and yet hardly ever come across anything on NO outside of the BBC or London newspapers , rather strange. I see and read a multitude of things by YES campaigners etc and see meetings with large audiences etc.
It is a case of state propaganda organisation versus a people's organisation.
We shall see how it ends, as we get closer , the fact of thousands of local organisations will be key. The BBC etc will have to curb their bias and so it will be down to local word of mouth.
I am not taking opinion of any YES or NO campaigns , methinks your friends in BT just do not want to admit they are in trouble.
Re YES Directors, it was clearly stated that they were there to build local groups throughout Scotland, that job is done and they have moved on. BT on the other hand are just paid Labour lackeys and will milk BT till the bitter end
I did say 'unsurprisingly' about the Borders to be fair! Along with Dumfries & Galloway I suspect that's where the biggest No vote in percentage terms will be received. It'll be interesting to see the extent of the regional differences across the country.
I hear #Labour are having a fringe conference. #UKIPSpring
LOL, ROFL.
He was pulled up by various people on the left and right for his eccentric ecstatic shrieking about "Lego the Movie". FACT. He seems PROUD of his sex tourism and hardly shrinks away from mentioning it on here. FACT.
Doesn't take much for a sensitive little hate-filled muslim and ethnic obsessive like yourself to start screaming for the Moderators and demanding an apology does it? I suggest you flounce off again if you think only you should be allowed to deal out the abuse because you certainly didn't get an apology last time and won't get one this time.
@GuidoFawkes: McCluskey finishes with message to Labour leadership: "this is our party and we're going nowhere". Miliband doesn't exactly look delighted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQBttKoetqo
@BBCNormanS: Awkward for Ed Miliband as Len McLuskey @unitetheunion urges delegates to applaud #falkirk organiser Stevie Deans
Once again Len bitch-slaps Ed.
Remember, Ed's 'fight' with Len would be great news for him...
It's that kind of paranoia that leads to 'eccentrics' thinking muslims are everywhere, sharia law is just around the corner because the English language is under threat and they are banning christmas! or some such Daily Mail hate-filled imbecility