While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
The SNP has positions for everyone. For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
Surely SLAB OUGHT to be to the left of the SNP. The latter’s main aim is an independent Scotland, and that’s an aim which can be shared by free-marketeers, social democrats and libertarians. If a socialist party isn’t to the left of such a grouping, what’s it for at all?
Unless of course SLAB isn’t really a socialist party!
What Malkie conveniently forgets to mention is that the SNP is a coalition from all political sides, and to be quite honest, Salmond has done a brilliant job of keeping most of them on board during the campaign.
To the Greens, he is all windmills (and according to the Sunday Post, has wasted £1.8 billion). To the socialists, he is all about wealth distribution and get a referendum on the monarchy (after Independence). To the Royalists, keep the Queen. To the banks and businesses, keep the pound, pay lower taxes and stay in the EU. To the oil companies, promises of tax breaks (after Independence). To the anti nuclear brigade, no new power stations and close Faslane. To BAE, keep building ships (including nuclear). To Kippers (or the nearest that we have), we may not join the EU and even if we did, we won't have the Euro. Etc. Etc. Etc.
There is a large minority within the SNP who do not trust Salmond and are biting their collective tongue in the hope that he can pull the Referendum out of the bag.
Once the referendum is won or lost, it will be interesting to see how long the SNP can keep going before the expected implosion.
Too many promises, winks and nudges have been made or acknowledged to too many people. Competing expectations will surely leave many people disappointed with the result. And there's nothing so angry than an ex-believer who has found their promised personal heaven on earth doesn't exist and never did.
If there is a Yes on 18th September then the SNP has achieved its aim. That most of what it has said to get the Yes will turn out to be wrong is of absolutely no importance - the Yes means independence and no turning back. The clue is in the Nationalist part of the name.
It's not a 'Nationalist' party - look at the actual name.
And the German Democratic Republic was not Democratic.....but it said so in the name.....
Once again when caught lying and called out , you shout "look a squirrel". Adding "ist " to the end , inferring polling companies are corrupt and suggesting people in England giving viewpoints on independence from their websites is bad. You are not to keen on democracy are you, peasants getting above themselves is upsetting you.
For such a charismatic and astute politician, Alec Rue the Day Salmond appears to have a low opinion of criticism. Compare his responses to the Economist and Andrew Marr, and the fall back position to blame the Tories, Lib Dems and the Bank of England for raising silly questions about a currency union, pensions, the UK's position on the UN, NATO, World Bank, WTO, EU, amongst other things. What would Scotland's position be on all of those bodies, other than a job creation scheme for lawyers, economists? The cyber nats seem very quiet when it comes to consideration of Salmond's weaknesses a political strategist.
When the going gets tough, that tough goes around trying to heid butt his critics. Is Salmond Devo Macs the flat track bully? Is the referendum a strategy to lever more powers from Westminster rather than full independence which upsets more than one apple cart?
If he loses the vote in September, he can at least blame Nicola Sturgeon, but if The SNP win what is going to happen to Labour and LIb Dem Westminster seats? What would Cameron's future look like? Not all voters would be keen on a party leader who enabled the break up of the Union with Scotland. The Scottish Referendum does have the potential to destroy some reputations, and shift the political geography of the UK.
Salmond is a brilliant political strategist. He knows exactly what he wants to achieve and he develops positions to get there. Whether they are coherent or honest is irrelevant. Unlike most other UK parties the SNP has one specific aim and one only - an independent Scotland. Once that is achieved there is no need for an SNP anymore. That means Salmond never has to worry about being held to account: a Yes cannot be undone in the way that a government party can be thrown out of office.
Is he though?
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion. Now you could argue that tactical factors (GOTV, etc) - on which I have no particular view - will be enough to get him home, but based on the polls that seems to be challenging.
The only way you can claim that he is a brilliant political strategist is if you think that DevoMax not independence was his aim all along. However, don't forget he failed to get it on the ballot paper (which would have been a great strategic achievement) so is now dependent on decisions made in Westminister in the event that NO wins.
I think he is just a better than average politician up against very weak set of opponents and, as a result, he shines brightly. Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Mr. G, didn't Parliament vote to axe Yanukovych[sp]?
I do agree the situation isn't black and white, although I do not support the Russian annexation of Crimea.
MD , Would you be happy if labour voted out the current government and announced themselves in power the next day, I think not. How toppling a democratic government is applauded by the west as opposed to Russia who actually gave the Crimean people a chance to vote can be compared is unbelievable. Russia come out of this looking far more democratic than the west.
1. 'Labour' cannot vote the government out of office. Parliament can, and is entitled to do so if the numbers are there. The same would apply to the SNP government in Holyrood, yes?
2. The people of Crimea are entitled to decide on their future within reason (protection of minorities etc) - but only in a free and fair manner. Fair elections require five things: (a) people and parties must be able to register for participation, (b) competing parties must be able to campaign fairly for the respective positions, (c) people entitled to cast a vote must be entitled to do so, or to abstain / record a protest against the options, (d) votes cast must be counted accurately, (e) the natural consequences of the votes cast should be realised. In Crimea, at least the first four of those requirements were not met. It cannot be considered a remotely fair poll.
3. If Russia is really looking more democratic than the West, how come Chechnya hasn't had a referendum?
I wonder whether you'd have said that the Austrian Anschluss referendum showed that Nazi Germany was more democratic than the West in 1938? Going by your logic, no doubt you would.
Mr. G, that's not a valid comparison because we have a parliamentary democracy and the numbers don't stack up for Labour.
If we had Con 300, Lab 290 and Lib Dem 40 then such a toppling of a Con-Lib coalition (to a Lab-Lib one) could occur. I would not be delighted, but that would be in line with the way the system is set up.
It's also worth mentioning Yanukovych's riot police did kill a number of protestors.
Also, I don't have any faith in the referendum (in Crimea, of course). It was held at very short notice, boycotted by many people, yet managed to have both a very high and almost uniformly pro-Russian turnout. Russian democracy is something of an oxymoron.
MD our government's troops killed many thousands in illegal wars including civilians , what happened there, oh they are multi millionaires and feted, dear dear. Double standards I am afraid.
I seem to recall Cammie also had a rather glaring blind spot for what the Syrian opposition was like before his own backbenchers humiliated him and told him where to go with that particular piece of Blairite NeoCon stupidity.
Surely SLAB OUGHT to be to the left of the SNP. The latter’s main aim is an independent Scotland, and that’s an aim which can be shared by free-marketeers, social democrats and libertarians. If a socialist party isn’t to the left of such a grouping, what’s it for at all?
Unless of course SLAB isn’t really a socialist party!
What Malkie conveniently forgets to mention is that the SNP is a coalition from all political sides, and to be quite honest, Salmond has done a brilliant job of keeping most of them on board during the campaign.
To the Greens, he is all windmills (and according to the Sunday Post, has wasted £1.8 billion). To the socialists, he is all about wealth distribution and get a referendum on the monarchy (after Independence). To the Royalists, keep the Queen. To the banks and businesses, keep the pound, pay lower taxes and stay in the EU. To the oil companies, promises of tax breaks (after Independence). To the anti nuclear brigade, no new power stations and close Faslane. To BAE, keep building ships (including nuclear). To Kippers (or the nearest that we have), we may not join the EU and even if we did, we won't have the Euro. Etc. Etc. Etc.
There is a large minority within the SNP who do not trust Salmond and are biting their collective tongue in the hope that he can pull the Referendum out of the bag.
Once the referendum is won or lost, it will be interesting to see how long the SNP can keep going before the expected implosion.
Too many promises, winks and nudges have been made or acknowledged to too many people. Competing expectations will surely leave many people disappointed with the result. And there's nothing so angry than an ex-believer who has found their promised personal heaven on earth doesn't exist and never did.
If there is a Yes on 18th September then the SNP has achieved its aim. That most of what it has said to get the Yes will turn out to be wrong is of absolutely no importance - the Yes means independence and no turning back. The clue is in the Nationalist part of the name.
It's not a 'Nationalist' party - look at the actual name.
From the OED: "nationalism: 2. a policy of national independence"
Another Tory supporter of democracy , "look a squirrel". Answer the question you dullard , what is the name of the party and where does the "ist " come from , oh yes lying Tories tried to say it was there but got caught again.
It means Putin is running rings round the Western donkeys and pretty soon he will kick them in the goolies. The pathetic sanctions crap will come back to haunt them.
that's what i was thinking
There's little doubt that Putin has won this.
Really?
He's revealed what he is (most people knew, but pretended to deny it) in return for a small, relatively non-strategic (but emotionally important) piece of territory. If the West has the courage to continue to freeze him out then I am not sure that the prize was worth it.
LOL, only a Rich Tory could come out with that guff.
Surely SLAB OUGHT to be to the left of the SNP. The latter’s main aim is an independent Scotland, and that’s an aim which can be shared by free-marketeers, social democrats and libertarians. If a socialist party isn’t to the left of such a grouping, what’s it for at all?
Unless of course SLAB isn’t really a socialist party!
If there is a Yes on 18th September then the SNP has achieved its aim. That most of what it has said to get the Yes will turn out to be wrong is of absolutely no importance - the Yes means independence and no turning back. The clue is in the Nationalist part of the name.
It's not a 'Nationalist' party - look at the actual name.
And the German Democratic Republic was not Democratic.....but it said so in the name.....
Once again when caught lying and called out , you shout "look a squirrel". Adding "ist " to the end , inferring polling companies are corrupt and suggesting people in England giving viewpoints on independence from their websites is bad. You are not to keen on democracy are you, peasants getting above themselves is upsetting you.
What lie?
SO described the SNP as a 'nationalist' party - a position you dispute?
I would have implied polling companies were corrupt, you inferred from my comment that they had not published several questions that I thought this to be the case - quite the contrary, as I made clear. Panelbase are only doing what NewsNetGloucester ask them to do. Why have they asked Panelbase not to publish those questions?....the topic from which you ever scamper away.....
It means Putin is running rings round the Western donkeys and pretty soon he will kick them in the goolies. The pathetic sanctions crap will come back to haunt them.
that's what i was thinking
There's little doubt that Putin has won this.
Really?
He's revealed what he is (most people knew, but pretended to deny it) in return for a small, relatively non-strategic (but emotionally important) piece of territory. If the West has the courage to continue to freeze him out then I am not sure that the prize was worth it.
lol
So why do you disagree?
My Ukrainian contacts - admittedly all from Kyiv* - are eminently relaxed about the situation. They understand that a shooting war with Russia will only have one outcome, so they will continue to build moral pressure, but with the strategic objective of using the Crimea situation to integrate themselves as fast and deep as possible with Europe.
Their objective to become like Poland or Lithuania rather than like Russia. The loss of a heavily Eastern-leaning province will make it far more likely that Western-inclined political leaders will be elected in future.
Of course if Russia tries to move into Eastern Ukraine then it become a much more existential question.
But looking forward 25 years, I think the West will be seen to have won this: another significant, stable democratic state created in return for the loss of a marshy peninsula.
Surely SLAB OUGHT to be to the left of the SNP. The latter’s main aim is an independent Scotland, and that’s an aim which can be shared by free-marketeers, social democrats and libertarians. If a socialist party isn’t to the left of such a grouping, what’s it for at all?
Unless of course SLAB isn’t really a socialist party!
What Malkie conveniently forgets to mention is that the SNP is a coalition from all political sides, and to be quite honest, Salmond has done a brilliant job of keeping most of them on board during the campaign.
To the Greens, he is all windmills (and according to the Sunday Post, has wasted £1.8 billion). To the socialists, he is all about wealth distribution and get a referendum on the monarchy (after Independence). To the Royalists, keep the Queen. To the banks and businesses, keep the pound, pay lower taxes and stay in the EU. To the oil companies, promises of tax breaks (after Independence). To the anti nuclear brigade, no new power stations and close Faslane. To BAE, keep building ships (including nuclear). To Kippers (or the nearest that we have), we may not join the EU and even if we did, we won't have the Euro. Etc. Etc. Etc.
There is a large minority within the SNP who do not trust Salmond and are biting their collective tongue in the hope that he can pull the Referendum out of the bag.
Once the referendum is won or lost, it will be interesting to see how long the SNP can keep going before the expected implosion.
Too many promises, winks and nudges have been made or acknowledged to too many people. Competing expectations will surely leave many people disappointed with the result. And there's nothing so angry than an ex-believer who has found their promised personal heaven on earth doesn't exist and never did.
If there is a Yes on 18th September then the SNP has achieved its aim. That most of what it has said to get the Yes will turn out to be wrong is of absolutely no importance - the Yes means independence and no turning back. The clue is in the Nationalist part of the name.
It's not a 'Nationalist' party - look at the actual name.
From the OED: "nationalism: 2. a policy of national independence"
Another Tory supporter of democracy , "look a squirrel". Answer the question you dullard , what is the name of the party and where does the "ist " come from , oh yes lying Tories tried to say it was there but got caught again.
The name is irrelevant. It's what it stands for that matters.
@Charles - "He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion"
The discussions about independence in the wake of a Yes vote are a completely secondary issue for Salmond. What is important is Scotland being an independent, sovereign state - for a nationalist that is all that matters. Salmond's entire strategy is about getting a Yes on 18th September. What happens after that is currently of absolutely no interest to him because with a Yes he has secured everything he has ever wanted for Scotland.
It means Putin is running rings round the Western donkeys and pretty soon he will kick them in the goolies. The pathetic sanctions crap will come back to haunt them.
that's what i was thinking
There's little doubt that Putin has won this.
Really?
He's revealed what he is (most people knew, but pretended to deny it) in return for a small, relatively non-strategic (but emotionally important) piece of territory. If the West has the courage to continue to freeze him out then I am not sure that the prize was worth it.
LOL, only a Rich Tory could come out with that guff.
Sorry? What does my financial position have to do with it?
would be keen on a party leader who enabled the break up of the Union with Scotland. The Scottish Referendum does have the potential to destroy some reputations, and shift the political geography of the UK.
Salmond is a brilliant political strategist. He knows exactly what he wants to achieve and he develops positions to get there. Whether they are coherent or honest is irrelevant. Unlike most other UK parties the SNP has one specific aim and one only - an independent Scotland. Once that is achieved there is no need for an SNP anymore. That means Salmond never has to worry about being held to account: a Yes cannot be undone in the way that a government party can be thrown out of office.
Is he though?
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion. Now you could argue that tactical factors (GOTV, etc) - on which I have no particular view - will be enough to get him home, but based on the polls that seems to be challenging.
The only way you can claim that he is a brilliant political strategist is if you think that DevoMax not independence was his aim all along. However, don't forget he failed to get it on the ballot paper (which would have been a great strategic achievement) so is now dependent on decisions made in Westminister in the event that NO wins.
I think he is just a better than average politician up against very weak set of opponents and, as a result, he shines brightly. Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Charles , as you seem to have not a clue about Scotland , Alex Salmond or the independence debate, rather than posting such drivel perhaps you should go and read up on the subject. He never ever wanted DevoMax on the ballot paper given he already knew that it would happen even if vote is NO. That was just him running rings round thick Etonians.
@Charles - "He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion"
The discussions about independence in the wake of a Yes vote are a completely secondary issue for Salmond. What is important is Scotland being an independent, sovereign state - for a nationalist that is all that matters. Salmond's entire strategy is about getting a Yes on 18th September. What happens after that is currently of absolutely no interest to him because with a Yes he has secured everything he has ever wanted for Scotland.
I agree with that. But my point was that, in being underprepared, he is not maximising the chance of getting a YES vote.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
Across Scotland, town halls, community centres and pubs have hosted packed public meetings. Many who go are non-nationalist voters, people who usually back Labour, the Scottish Greens, the Liberal Democrats or no party at all. Some listen, arms crossed, not always convinced; many applaud.
Even hardened Scottish National party activists are surprised. They talk of a marked shift in public attitudes in recent months, and a political energy not seen in decades. In many neighbourhoods a switch has been flicked, from off to on. Independence, they argue, no longer belongs to nationalists.
Voters who once closed the door to Yes Scotland canvassers are now opening them, to talk more, to agree or even to sign up. Peter Murrell, the Scottish National party's chief executive, estimates that as many as 100,000 people have volunteered, donated money or helped out in some form – a number some four times as large as the SNP's membership.
Gerry McLaughlan, a veteran SNP organiser who remembers the unsuccessful 1979 devolution referendum, says he has seen a marked change in Stirling. Local meetings, organised by socialist groups, an artists' collective or pro-independence students, are packed out, with more than 100 people turning up at each.
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
The name is irrelevant. It's what it stands for that matters.
I had thought malcom had missed my point about the name of the GDR....but given his comments on Russia being more democratic than the West, I am not so sure. Curious position for a self-described right-of-centre chap......
Second, I think those of who are in some sense on the left (or perhaps "other-directed" in another discourse) just have to accept that we will be on the receiving end of irate if not actually abusive posts from right-wingers. It is, after all, pretty difficult to be on the right, politically, without considering oneself in some sense better than other people.
Finally, I will simply say this: anyone - no matter their ethnicity - who prefers their own children to other people's is necessarily a racist. But if you don't, you've got other problems. Boy, have you ever. Many people do of course manage to walk the tightrope, although spending time on a comments column like this doesn't help much...
Thank you. I assume most of the rest above refers to other posters. I don't however, believe that those on the right are any more prone to considering themselves superior than left-wingers - the 'holier than thou' trait is strongly featured among the guardianistas. Your reference to child preference and racism may be an unintended misquote - surely the parent child bond is not racist in the normally accepted view of the term?
Mr. G, Blair being despicable doesn't make Putin a force for good.
MD, I never suggested he was, I merely compared him with the weasels from the west who pursue the same objectives as him from an opposite viewpoint but do it more dishonestly. He at least is open about it.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post or just go automatically into rebutal mode?
I explicitly noted that GOTV/tactical points were important and I have no view, because I have no first hand knowledge - only what you and others have posted.
I was challenging SO's view that Salmond is an exceptional strategist. He isn't. He may be a very good tactician, but that's not the same thing.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Malcolm is my British brother! We have drunk beer and eaten curry together. I would not take everything he posts on here entirely seriously. He is a nationalist through and through and he sees the SNP as the vehicle through which he can get what he wants. He is definitely not signed up to much of the stuff the SNP talks about in order to get Labour voters to think about a Yes.
Mr. G, didn't Parliament vote to axe Yanukovych[sp]?
I do agree the situation isn't black and white, although I do not support the Russian annexation of Crimea.
MD , Would you be happy if labour voted out the current government and announced themselves in power the next day, I think not. How toppling a democratic government is applauded by the west as opposed to Russia who actually gave the Crimean people a chance to vote can be compared is unbelievable. Russia come out of this looking far more democratic than the west.
1. 'Labour' cannot vote the government out of office. Parliament can, and is entitled to do so if the numbers are there. The same would apply to the SNP government in Holyrood, yes?
2. The people of Crimea are entitled to decide on their future within reason (protection of minorities etc) - but only in a free and fair manner. Fair elections require five things: (a) people and parties must be able to register for participation, (b) competing parties must be able to campaign fairly for the respective positions, (c) people entitled to cast a vote must be entitled to do so, or to abstain / record a protest against the options, (d) votes cast must be counted accurately, (e) the natural consequences of the votes cast should be realised. In Crimea, at least the first four of those requirements were not met. It cannot be considered a remotely fair poll.
3. If Russia is really looking more democratic than the West, how come Chechnya hasn't had a referendum?
I wonder whether you'd have said that the Austrian Anschluss referendum showed that Nazi Germany was more democratic than the West in 1938? Going by your logic, no doubt you would.
Meanwhile as in 1938 the west wave bits of paper and promise peace in our lifetime. How many people in Ukraine voted for the current government and did their election pass your 5 tests., ooops looks like fail in all 5, democracy western style.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
I am perfectly happy to pay for freedom from Westminster, I am not obsessed with greed. Scotland will do well whatever currency it chooses to use.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Malcolm is my British brother! We have drunk beer and eaten curry together.
I'm sure he's more civil in person than he is on-line.......
Surely SLAB OUGHT to be to the left of the SNP. The latter’s main aim is an independent Scotland, and that’s an aim which can be shared by free-marketeers, social democrats and libertarians. If a socialist party isn’t to the left of such a grouping, what’s it for at all?
Unless of course SLAB isn’t really a socialist party!
If there is a Yes on 18th September then the SNP has achieved its aim. That most of what it has said to get the Yes will turn out to be wrong is of absolutely no importance - the Yes means independence and no turning back. The clue is in the Nationalist part of the name.
It's not a 'Nationalist' party - look at the actual name.
From the OED: "nationalism: 2. a policy of national independence"
Another Tory supporter of democracy , "look a squirrel". Answer the question you dullard , what is the name of the party and where does the "ist " come from , oh yes lying Tories tried to say it was there but got caught again.
The name is irrelevant. It's what it stands for that matters.
As for the abuse, tread carefully.
ooh I am trembling , threatened online by a jessie, what will you do , have your pals ban me for daring to have an opinion. Typical Tory , never like to hear the truth.
@Charles - "He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion"
The discussions about independence in the wake of a Yes vote are a completely secondary issue for Salmond. What is important is Scotland being an independent, sovereign state - for a nationalist that is all that matters. Salmond's entire strategy is about getting a Yes on 18th September. What happens after that is currently of absolutely no interest to him because with a Yes he has secured everything he has ever wanted for Scotland.
I agree with that. But my point was that, in being underprepared, he is not maximising the chance of getting a YES vote.
I disagree. If he were totally up-front he would have to address the currency issue much more seriously. That would mean telling Scots that they either cede monetary and fiscal control to Westminster inside a sterling zone or that they go it alone with a Scottish currency and for the foreseeable future subject themselves to higher borrowing costs as well as pretty severe fiscal and monetary constraints. Neither option is going to be attractive to the Labour voters the Yes side needs.
I see Labour's triumphs in the fields of health and education in the People's Republic of Wales are getting a full airing in the Mail today.
Plummeting educational standards, soaring waiting lists and the desperate tactics being employed to keep whistle blowers silent for just one more year.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Malcolm is my British brother! We have drunk beer and eaten curry together.
I'm sure he's more civil in person than he is on-line.......
It means Putin is running rings round the Western donkeys and pretty soon he will kick them in the goolies. The pathetic sanctions crap will come back to haunt them.
that's what i was thinking
There's little doubt that Putin has won this.
Really?
He's revealed what he is (most people knew, but pretended to deny it) in return for a small, relatively non-strategic (but emotionally important) piece of territory. If the West has the courage to continue to freeze him out then I am not sure that the prize was worth it.
LOL, only a Rich Tory could come out with that guff.
Sorry? What does my financial position have to do with it?
The fact that you think sanctions against a handful of rich people is winning the argument. Only a rich person could be so gullible. Putin has already won and will be seen to be right, the west bungled Ukraine with their stage manged interventions encouraging a coup. As ever they are happy to support any nasty right wing party if they think they might get one over Russia. tragically their arrogance at always assuming the Russians are stupid trips them up as usual.
@Charles - "He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion"
The discussions about independence in the wake of a Yes vote are a completely secondary issue for Salmond. What is important is Scotland being an independent, sovereign state - for a nationalist that is all that matters. Salmond's entire strategy is about getting a Yes on 18th September. What happens after that is currently of absolutely no interest to him because with a Yes he has secured everything he has ever wanted for Scotland.
I agree with that. But my point was that, in being underprepared, he is not maximising the chance of getting a YES vote.
LOL, he has only been preparing for it for over 30 years , but of course an out of touch Tory will know better.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
The name is irrelevant. It's what it stands for that matters.
I had thought malcom had missed my point about the name of the GDR....but given his comments on Russia being more democratic than the West, I am not so sure. Curious position for a self-described right-of-centre chap......
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
I am perfectly happy to pay for freedom from Westminster, I am not obsessed with greed. Scotland will do well whatever currency it chooses to use.
Fighting talk! Pity you don't criticise Salmond for not having the courage of your convictions.....
It means Putin is running rings round the Western donkeys and pretty soon he will kick them in the goolies. The pathetic sanctions crap will come back to haunt them.
that's what i was thinking
There's little doubt that Putin has won this.
Really?
He's revealed what he is (most people knew, but pretended to deny it) in return for a small, relatively non-strategic (but emotionally important) piece of territory. If the West has the courage to continue to freeze him out then I am not sure that the prize was worth it.
LOL, only a Rich Tory could come out with that guff.
Sorry? What does my financial position have to do with it?
The fact that you think sanctions against a handful of rich people is winning the argument. Only a rich person could be so gullible. Putin has already won and will be seen to be right, the west bungled Ukraine with their stage manged interventions encouraging a coup. As ever they are happy to support any nasty right wing party if they think they might get one over Russia. tragically their arrogance at always assuming the Russians are stupid trips them up as usual.
The neocons are weird in that they're not actually stupid but they're so rabid it makes them act like they are.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Malcolm is my British brother! We have drunk beer and eaten curry together.
I'm sure he's more civil in person than he is on-line.......
I reckon most of us are. Even Mick!
Even a Spanish Nationalist might be able to restrain his unconcealed hatred of the SNP in real life. It's always possible!
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Malcolm is my British brother! We have drunk beer and eaten curry together.
I'm sure he's more civil in person than he is on-line.......
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post or just go automatically into rebutal mode?
I explicitly noted that GOTV/tactical points were important and I have no view, because I have no first hand knowledge - only what you and others have posted.
I was challenging SO's view that Salmond is an exceptional strategist. He isn't. He may be a very good tactician, but that's not the same thing.
So after admitting you have no clue on the subject you repeat that he is not exceptional in your best Andrew Marr , "In my opinion", based on reading others posts of course.
Mr. Pork, that's a stupid argument. Imagine a Yorkshire independence debate where Out is represented by Brian Blessed and In by a Lancastrian. Or a European debate where Out is represented by Farage and In by Barroso. It's ludicrous.
It means Putin is running rings round the Western donkeys and pretty soon he will kick them in the goolies. The pathetic sanctions crap will come back to haunt them.
that's what i was thinking
There's little doubt that Putin has won this.
Really?
He's revealed what he is (most people knew, but pretended to deny it) in return for a small, relatively non-strategic (but emotionally important) piece of territory. If the West has the courage to continue to freeze him out then I am not sure that the prize was worth it.
LOL, only a Rich Tory could come out with that guff.
Sorry? What does my financial position have to do with it?
The fact that you think sanctions against a handful of rich people is winning the argument. Only a rich person could be so gullible. Putin has already won and will be seen to be right, the west bungled Ukraine with their stage manged interventions encouraging a coup. As ever they are happy to support any nasty right wing party if they think they might get one over Russia. tragically their arrogance at always assuming the Russians are stupid trips them up as usual.
There's two points:
Firstly, a key part of Putin's power comes from his ability to reward his friends and allies. If that becomes harder it may hurt the regime without hurting the Russian people.
Second, my larger point was that Ukraine is much more likely now, over the next 25 years, to develop into another Poland than another Russia. I play the long game.
The name is irrelevant. It's what it stands for that matters.
I had thought malcom had missed my point about the name of the GDR....but given his comments on Russia being more democratic than the West, I am not so sure. Curious position for a self-described right-of-centre chap......
Carlotta, I do not miss points, I may ignore them but do not miss them. I do believe you would have liked to have been a member given your tendencies to dislike democracy.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Mr. Pork, that's a stupid argument. Imagine a Yorkshire independence debate where Out is represented by Brian Blessed and In by a Lancastrian.
Luckily I don't have to imagine someone so phenomenally out of touch and 'eccentric' as to think that's even remotely close to being a reasonable or sane comparison. You've done that quite splendidly thanks.
It's a great pity we couldn't get some of PB's 'finest' to campaign full time for the No campaign.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Malcolm is my British brother! We have drunk beer and eaten curry together. I would not take everything he posts on here entirely seriously. He is a nationalist through and through and he sees the SNP as the vehicle through which he can get what he wants. He is definitely not signed up to much of the stuff the SNP talks about in order to get Labour voters to think about a Yes.
LOL, good beer and curry it was as well SO. Hopefully , along with Alan , we will get the chance to do so again. It was a most enjoyable evening. Especially given how differently the three of us post on here as well. However that is a bit subtle for Carlotta, Tories take a long time to get it.
For all the Zerohedge articles and other doom-mongering from some quarters, I've yet to see anything approaching a coherent alternative position re: how we should deal with Russia and the Ukraine.
Short of direct military intervention, I doubt there's anything we could have done to prevent what has happened in the Crimea. Instead, most of the Atlanticist opinion-formers spend their time warning us of dire consequences and complaining about Obama without suggesting in any way that a President Romney would have done anything different.
We have "enjoyed" a period with one dominant superpower since 1989 but that's not the natural order of things and the Pax Americana some believed would follow the fall of the Berlin Wall (the seminal political, economic and cultural event of our time whose ramifications are still being felt today) and seemed to be here with the liberation of Kuwait has proved to be a chimera.
A new Sino-Russian relationship would not be without its tensions and naturally India is being courted by all sides. How should we respond ? There will be those who will talk about increasing defence spending as though that's some kind of magic bullet - it may make us feel better in some way - but the truth is that in a multi-polar world foreign policy is going to be different and that means having to think differently, sometimes working with those whose values and mores aren't our own but who have a community of interest.
Mr. G, I can't recall the last British leader to pursue annexation of foreign territory as a policy.
MD , it may not be recent but it was britain's reason d'etre for hundreds of years, we did annexe most of the world and plunder it. I am afraid we are in a large glass house and cannot afford to be throwing any stones.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader.
And that's supposed to convince anyone that you aren't guilty of westminster bubble thinking? A rather 'bold' tactic/strategy indeed.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post or just go automatically into rebutal mode?
I explicitly noted that GOTV/tactical points were important and I have no view, because I have no first hand knowledge - only what you and others have posted.
I was challenging SO's view that Salmond is an exceptional strategist. He isn't. He may be a very good tactician, but that's not the same thing.
So after admitting you have no clue on the subject you repeat that he is not exceptional in your best Andrew Marr , "In my opinion", based on reading others posts of course.
No: I made a comment about strategy, not about tactics.
You may not realise there is a difference, but there is.
Salmond's big strategic failure was his failure to get DevoMax on the ballot paper. If he had done that it would have been a triumph. That failure means that - assuming the SNP's apparent tactical advantages [I have no view] are insufficient to get a YES result - he will be dependent on London for any further devolution of powers rather than arguing based a clear mandate from the voters.
While the SNP and UKIP may claim to different positions on the mythical left-right axis, from my point. of view they are two sides of the same coin. Both promote nationalism, both see external forces as the root of political problems. They rely on charamatic leaders who evoke a bygone age. Their supporters are equally evangelical.
Perceptive analysis. The other difference is they rarely, if ever, criticise their Leadership, unlike Con or Lab for example.......
LOL, just as you two are cheeks of the same arse and are talking out of it.
And the last time a Nat criticised Salmond was.......?
many of us on here are for independence for Scotland but are not "Nats" as you put it. I myself am at least centre right
Then I am surprised you find Salmond's record and plans so far beyond criticism.....If I thought you were SNP, I would say so, you are however a Nat(ionalist) who never criticises the leader of a party well to the left of your own position....which I find curious......
For someone on the centre right its advocacy of a currency union with the rUK - and, therefore, Westminster control of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal policy - must be very attractive.
I'm not convinced Malcolm has thought that bit through.......
Malcolm is my British brother! We have drunk beer and eaten curry together.
I'm sure he's more civil in person than he is on-line.......
I reckon most of us are. Even Mick!
Even a Spanish Nationalist might be able to restrain his unconcealed hatred of the SNP in real life. It's always possible!
Mick, SO is a gentleman and a scholar, a nicer chap you would not meet. All that and he likes a beer.
Chinese announce they have satellite image of object 22m * 30m in the search area for MH370... Handed to Malaysian minister on a piece of paper in the middle of his press conference...
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader.
And that's supposed to convince anyone that you aren't guilty of westminster bubble thinking? A rather 'bold' tactic/strategy indeed.
Not particularly. I get most of my UK political information from here and the Spectator and spend most of my time worrying about Europe and the US. I doubt I'm guilty of 'Westminster bubble' thinking, but probably have a London-centric view (although I try not to).
But the simple reality is that Cameron has no need to debate with Salmond and so he won't. That's not being cowardly or pathetic or any such emotive bullsh1t. It's just a calculation of the upside potential and the downside risk.
"Don’t bet on a Tory Euro-win unless you expect a Blue landslide in 2015" - not sure the implication necessarily follows, because the 7%-Tories-ahead-on-votes-behind-on-seats rule does not apply (although I argue it will be less) and there's a much greater opportunity for a three-way split. If the Tories do win in Europe, which is unlikely, it will be by nudging only slightly ahead of a three-way split.
Mr. G, I can't recall the last British leader to pursue annexation of foreign territory as a policy.
Churchill was certainly ideologically committed to holding on to territories that previous British governments had annexed. Thankfully the electorate booted him out before he could indulge in what would have been a disastrous post imperialist sulk.
My word there is an awful lot of abuse on here for so early on a Saturday morning. I am surprised OGH puts up with it. It can't do the reputation of his site much good and it will definitely be off-putting for a potential new poster looking for a place to talk about politics which doesn't involve getting called a fool, liar, coward or worse because one has said something that someone else disagrees with.
Chinese announce they have satellite image of object 22m * 30m in the search area for MH370... Handed to Malaysian minister on a piece of paper in the middle of his press conference...
That would have to be the fuselage with part of a wing attached, if it was plane debris. Also a pretty large hunk of metal to still be floating after all this time, surely?
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader.
And that's supposed to convince anyone that you aren't guilty of westminster bubble thinking? A rather 'bold' tactic/strategy indeed.
But the simple reality is that Cameron has no need to debate with Salmond and so he won't. That's not being cowardly or pathetic or any such emotive bullsh1t. It's just a calculation of the upside potential and the downside risk.
Are you sure? The Nats repeatedly assure us that he'll be 'forced into it'.......
Chinese announce they have satellite image of object 22m * 30m in the search area for MH370... Handed to Malaysian minister on a piece of paper in the middle of his press conference...
That would have to be the fuselage with part of a wing attached, if it was plane debris. Also a pretty large hunk of metal to still be floating after all this time, surely?
May be they had it on land and then dropped it off by submarine...
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post or just go automatically into rebutal mode?
I explicitly noted that GOTV/tactical points were important and I have no view, because I have no first hand knowledge - only what you and others have posted.
I was challenging SO's view that Salmond is an exceptional strategist. He isn't. He may be a very good tactician, but that's not the same thing.
So after admitting you have no clue on the subject you repeat that he is not exceptional in your best Andrew Marr , "In my opinion", based on reading others posts of course.
No: I made a comment about strategy, not about tactics.
You may not realise there is a difference, but there is.
Salmond's big strategic failure was his failure to get DevoMax on the ballot paper.
You really don't know what's happening in the campaign, do you Charles? Right now we have the spectacle of SLAB and even little Ed trying to promise more devolution while ruling out massive swathes of powers that would make it anything more than mere window dressing.
So do you think it's strategically beneficial for SLAB and the other Unionist parties to have been so vehemently opposed to more powers and DevoMax on the ballot as SLAB try to persuade the scottish public they really do mean it? Or might that not have been the wisest of moves on their part?
I can assure you that very thin promises of Jam tomorrow are going to be debated and looked at with more than a touch of scepticism by the scottish public after not just that but Douglas-Home and the infamous promise of "something better" in 79.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Once again the typical rich Tory upper class silver spoon southerner opinion that ensures the vote will be YES. Think they are born better than other people and those damn peasants in the regions should not be so uppity. Shorn of any foreigners to look down on they have only Scotland and Wales left to lord it over. One can only say what a FANNY you are.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post or just go automatically into rebutal mode?
I explicitly noted that GOTV/tactical points were important and I have no view, because I have no first hand knowledge - only what you and others have posted.
I was challenging SO's view that Salmond is an exceptional strategist. He isn't. He may be a very good tactician, but that's not the same thing.
So after admitting you have no clue on the subject you repeat that he is not exceptional in your best Andrew Marr , "In my opinion", based on reading others posts of course.
No: I made a comment about strategy, not about tactics.
You may not realise there is a difference, but there is.
Salmond's big strategic failure was his failure to get DevoMax on the ballot paper.
You really don't know what's happening in the campaign, do you Charles? Right now we have the spectacle of SLAB and even little Ed trying to promise more devolution while ruling out massive swathes of powers that would make it anything more than mere window dressing.
So do you think it's strategically beneficial for SLAB and the other Unionist parties to have been so vehemently opposed to more powers and DevoMax on the ballot as SLAB try to persuade the scottish public they really do mean it? Or might that not have been the wisest of moves on their part?
I can assure you that very thin promises of Jam tomorrow are going to be debated and looked at with more than a touch of scepticism by the scottish public after not just that but Douglas-Home and the infamous promise of "something better" in 79.
Yes, I do believe strategically they should have kept DevoMax off the ballot paper. Tactically it could make sense to promise jam tomorrow at this point - because very few non-nerds remember the debate about the ballot paper. It may be looked at sceptically by the voters, but you don't have to persuade that many to put a nail in the YES coffin.
Chinese announce they have satellite image of object 22m * 30m in the search area for MH370... Handed to Malaysian minister on a piece of paper in the middle of his press conference...
That would have to be the fuselage with part of a wing attached, if it was plane debris. Also a pretty large hunk of metal to still be floating after all this time, surely?
My word there is an awful lot of abuse on here for so early on a Saturday morning. I am surprised OGH puts up with it. It can't do the reputation of his site much good and it will definitely be off-putting for a potential new poster looking for a place to talk about politics which doesn't involve getting called a fool, liar, coward or worse because one has said something that someone else disagrees with.
Could we ease up on the abuse, please?
No it si too much fun, you be nice if you want to Hurst, we prefer rough and tumble, not poncy back slapping
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Once again the typical rich Tory upper class silver spoon southerner opinion that ensures the vote will be YES. Think they are born better than other people and those damn peasants in the regions should not be so uppity. Shorn of any foreigners to look down on they have only Scotland and Wales left to lord it over. One can only say what a FANNY you are.
Salmond won't debate beneath himself - eg Darling. Eck is following Dave's lead.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader.
And that's supposed to convince anyone that you aren't guilty of westminster bubble thinking? A rather 'bold' tactic/strategy indeed.
But the simple reality is that Cameron has no need to debate with Salmond and so he won't. That's not being cowardly or pathetic or any such emotive bullsh1t. It's just a calculation of the upside potential and the downside risk.
Are you sure? The Nats repeatedly assure us that he'll be 'forced into it'.......
Someone will need to lend him a spine, he knows he will get monstered and so will avoid at all costs. He will leave it to a labour back bench expenses flipper to save the union.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
ensures the vote will be YES.
Remember how you assured us that Alan Cumming would definitely get a vote and all comments to the contrary were from [fill in list of abusive epithets] Unionists?
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post or just go automatically into rebutal mode?
I explicitly noted that GOTV/tactical points were important and I have no view, because I have no first hand knowledge - only what you and others have posted.
I was challenging SO's view that Salmond is an exceptional strategist. He isn't. He may be a very good tactician, but that's not the same thing.
So after admitting you have no clue on the subject you repeat that he is not exceptional in your best Andrew Marr , "In my opinion", based on reading others posts of course.
No: I made a comment about strategy, not about tactics.
You may not realise there is a difference, but there is.
Salmond's big strategic failure was his failure to get DevoMax on the ballot paper.
You really don't know what's happening in the campaign, do you Charles? Right now we have the spectacle of SLAB and even little Ed trying to promise more devolution while ruling out massive swathes of powers that would make it anything more than mere window dressing.
So do you think it's strategically beneficial for SLAB and the other Unionist parties to have been so vehemently opposed to more powers and DevoMax on the ballot as SLAB try to persuade the scottish public they really do mean it? Or might that not have been the wisest of moves on their part?
I can assure you that very thin promises of Jam tomorrow are going to be debated and looked at with more than a touch of scepticism by the scottish public after not just that but Douglas-Home and the infamous promise of "something better" in 79.
because very few non-nerds remember the debate about the ballot paper.
I'm intrigued that you think little Ed weighing in so publicly on more powers won't feature heavily in the TV debates and debates around scotland right now. Or that those in Yes are somehow going to forget to remind the voters about the unionist parties being so vehemently opposed to more powers on the ballot when it is debated. More powers is very far from a "nerd" obsession even if it was little Ed who was trying to convince scottish voters that he really means it.
Somewhere at the bottom of this thread there was an interesting discussion about Tory chances in the EU elections.
I disagree that success at the EU elections would say much about Tory chances next year. It's a low turnout election. A little more can be deduced from a poor Tory performance because their voters historically have tended to turn out more for low turnout elections. But given that many voters who would consider themselves loyal Tories will take the opportunity to express their irrational dislike of the EU by voting for UKIP, only a little more.
The significance of the EU elections will be in the parties' reaction to the results, not the results themselves.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Once again the typical rich Tory upper class silver spoon southerner opinion that ensures the vote will be YES. Think they are born better than other people and those damn peasants in the regions should not be so uppity. Shorn of any foreigners to look down on they have only Scotland and Wales left to lord it over. One can only say what a FANNY you are.
How do you draw that conclusion?
Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland. His *constitutional* peers are the leaders in Wales and Northern Ireland. You could make a case that, in the absence of a FM of England, the Mayor of London could be considered a peer as well, but that is more debatable.
His constitutional counterpart within the Westminster government is Alistair Carmichael.
As leader of the SNP, his peers are the leader of SCON, SLAB and the other Scottish party that fell down the back of the sofa.
Chinese announce they have satellite image of object 22m * 30m in the search area for MH370... Handed to Malaysian minister on a piece of paper in the middle of his press conference...
That would have to be the fuselage with part of a wing attached, if it was plane debris. Also a pretty large hunk of metal to still be floating after all this time, surely?
Mr. G, I can't recall the last British leader to pursue annexation of foreign territory as a policy.
Churchill was certainly ideologically committed to holding on to territories that previous British governments had annexed. Thankfully the electorate booted him out before he could indulge in what would have been a disastrous post imperialist sulk.
Mr. Divvie, I think you need to look again at the actions and decisions of the Atlee government. India aside, they were not dismantle the Empire men, quite the reverse as released Cabinet papers make quite clear. In fact one could argue that their decision to hang on to Libya, never pre-war colony, to provide a long term base for an expanded RAF presence the Med showed quite the opposite intention.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Once again the typical rich Tory upper class silver spoon southerner opinion that ensures the vote will be YES. Think they are born better than other people and those damn peasants in the regions should not be so uppity. Shorn of any foreigners to look down on they have only Scotland and Wales left to lord it over. One can only say what a FANNY you are.
Salmond won't debate beneath himself - eg Darling. Eck is following Dave's lead.
Why would he debate with the monkey. darling is a back bencher who cannot give any opinion on the UK given he has no status or power. Says it all about Cameron, he could not even raise a real Tory to lead the campaign to save the union and had to resort to using a pseudo Tory in Flipper.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Because Salmond is a regional leader.
And that's supposed to convince anyone that you aren't guilty of westminster bubble thinking? A rather 'bold' tactic/strategy indeed.
But the simple reality is that Cameron has no need to debate with Salmond and so he won't. That's not being cowardly or pathetic or any such emotive bullsh1t. It's just a calculation of the upside potential and the downside risk.
Are you sure? The Nats repeatedly assure us that he'll be 'forced into it'.......
Someone will need to lend him a spine, he knows he will get monstered and so will avoid at all costs. He will leave it to a labour back bench expenses flipper to save the union.
So Cameron won't be forced into it?
But you were so sure........
Oh well, another 'certainty' to add to the list.....EU....Nato.....Sterling Zone.....Cameron/Salmond debate.......
Mr. Antifrank, I'd be greatly surprised if the Conservatives topped the poll. I thought UKIP highly likely to win, but now it seems harder to call between them and Labour.
The significance of the EU elections will be in the parties' reaction to the results, not the results themselves.
For the EU elections yes. For the locals going on at the same time not so much. Those are in some areas that are going to feature very heavily in 2015 so a strong or weak showing and presence there is going to matter a fair bit. It could also be a toehold for kippers in some areas where they could prove troublesome to shift in the future.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
ensures the vote will be YES.
Remember how you assured us that Alan Cumming would definitely get a vote and all comments to the contrary were from [fill in list of abusive epithets] Unionists?
I'm intrigued that you think little Ed weighing in so publicly on more powers won't feature heavily in the TV debates and debates around scotland right now. Or that those in Yes are somehow going to forget to remind the voters about the unionist parties being so vehemently opposed to more powers on the ballot when it is debated. More powers is very far from a "nerd" obsession even if it was little Ed who was trying to convince scottish voters that he really means it.
More powers is definitely not a "nerd" obsession. And I am sure it will form part of the debate. It's the message "don't worry, things can be better under in the Union" to try and peel off some of the weak-YES voters
Whether it was added as a third question to a ballot paper that people wont see for 6 months is...
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Once again the typical rich Tory upper class silver spoon southerner opinion that ensures the vote will be YES. Think they are born better than other people and those damn peasants in the regions should not be so uppity. Shorn of any foreigners to look down on they have only Scotland and Wales left to lord it over. One can only say what a FANNY you are.
Salmond won't debate beneath himself - eg Darling. Eck is following Dave's lead.
Why would he debate with the monkey. darling is a back bencher who cannot give any opinion on the UK given he has no status or power. Says it all about Cameron, he could not even raise a real Tory to lead the campaign to save the union and had to resort to using a pseudo Tory in Flipper.
Cameron doesn't want to debate someone not of his status either - it's the same argument - can you not borrow a second eye to see it ?
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Once again the typical rich Tory upper class silver spoon southerner opinion that ensures the vote will be YES. Think they are born better than other people and those damn peasants in the regions should not be so uppity. Shorn of any foreigners to look down on they have only Scotland and Wales left to lord it over. One can only say what a FANNY you are.
How do you draw that conclusion?
Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland. His *constitutional* peers are the leaders in Wales and Northern Ireland. You could make a case that, in the absence of a FM of England, the Mayor of London could be considered a peer as well, but that is more debatable.
His constitutional counterpart within the Westminster government is Alistair Carmichael.
As leader of the SNP, his peers are the leader of SCON, SLAB and the other Scottish party that fell down the back of the sofa.
Cameron doesn't figure anywhere on that list.
Only in the minds of southerners. Scottish labour does not exist , they only have the Labour party run from London. Others likely the same but I would not waste the time checking it. As I said you are out of touch with real life.
Missing one of my favourites - mortalic! Of course, the Scots pronunciation 'hoos' is how 'house' was pronounced across Britain before the great vowel sift......
As leader of the SNP, his peers are the leader of SCON, SLAB and the other Scottish party that fell down the back of the sofa.
Cameron doesn't figure anywhere on that list.
Yet he and little Ed and even Osbrowne keep piling in on the matter but don't seem to be too brave about debating it properly. I'm sure the scottish public won't have noticed.
It should be remembered that we have local elections in London on May 22nd so the turnout may be better than some imagine. Said elections will also be a key barometer as to how the parties are faring in London, a vital battleground for 2015.
Labour did well in 2010 buoyed by increased turnout and will need to be doing well in places like Ealing, Croydon and Brent while the Conservative-LD battles in Sutton, Kingston and Richmond will be illuminating. In my Borough, Newham, the question will be whether Labour wins all 60 seats or only 59.
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion.
Not that I don't enjoy westmisnter bubble thinking as it is quite comical, but the side that seems "woefully unprepared" certainly isn't Yes for those of us who have been watching and taking part in the long prepared strategy.
...
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Did you bother to read my post
I did indeed. It's comical bubble thinking was quite revealing on some imaginary differentiation between strategy and tactics on what is very far from an inconsequential matter.
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
ensures the vote will be YES.
Remember how you assured us that Alan Cumming would definitely get a vote and all comments to the contrary were from [fill in list of abusive epithets] Unionists?
How did that turn out?
struggling are you
Its not my confident assertions that have turned out to be false, is it?
Couldn't find "Malcolm meltdown" in there - his wee wheels are coming off this morning. Perhaps a nice cup of English breakfast tea might help ?
I have had a few already Flasher, just getting prepared to go and power wash the patio. I will be able to see all those smug Tory coupons etched in the slime and wash them all away , finished off by a cold beer late afternoon.
Comments
He seems woefully unprepared for the independence discussion. Now you could argue that tactical factors (GOTV, etc) - on which I have no particular view - will be enough to get him home, but based on the polls that seems to be challenging.
The only way you can claim that he is a brilliant political strategist is if you think that DevoMax not independence was his aim all along. However, don't forget he failed to get it on the ballot paper (which would have been a great strategic achievement) so is now dependent on decisions made in Westminister in the event that NO wins.
I think he is just a better than average politician up against very weak set of opponents and, as a result, he shines brightly. Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
2. The people of Crimea are entitled to decide on their future within reason (protection of minorities etc) - but only in a free and fair manner. Fair elections require five things: (a) people and parties must be able to register for participation, (b) competing parties must be able to campaign fairly for the respective positions, (c) people entitled to cast a vote must be entitled to do so, or to abstain / record a protest against the options, (d) votes cast must be counted accurately, (e) the natural consequences of the votes cast should be realised. In Crimea, at least the first four of those requirements were not met. It cannot be considered a remotely fair poll.
3. If Russia is really looking more democratic than the West, how come Chechnya hasn't had a referendum?
I wonder whether you'd have said that the Austrian Anschluss referendum showed that Nazi Germany was more democratic than the West in 1938? Going by your logic, no doubt you would.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYEneaA9nLA
I seem to recall Cammie also had a rather glaring blind spot for what the Syrian opposition was like before his own backbenchers humiliated him and told him where to go with that particular piece of Blairite NeoCon stupidity.
SO described the SNP as a 'nationalist' party - a position you dispute?
I would have implied polling companies were corrupt, you inferred from my comment that they had not published several questions that I thought this to be the case - quite the contrary, as I made clear. Panelbase are only doing what NewsNetGloucester ask them to do. Why have they asked Panelbase not to publish those questions?....the topic from which you ever scamper away.....
My Ukrainian contacts - admittedly all from Kyiv* - are eminently relaxed about the situation. They understand that a shooting war with Russia will only have one outcome, so they will continue to build moral pressure, but with the strategic objective of using the Crimea situation to integrate themselves as fast and deep as possible with Europe.
Their objective to become like Poland or Lithuania rather than like Russia. The loss of a heavily Eastern-leaning province will make it far more likely that Western-inclined political leaders will be elected in future.
Of course if Russia tries to move into Eastern Ukraine then it become a much more existential question.
But looking forward 25 years, I think the West will be seen to have won this: another significant, stable democratic state created in return for the loss of a marshy peninsula.
* Kyiv is the Ukranian spelling. Kiev is Russian.
As for the abuse, tread carefully.
The discussions about independence in the wake of a Yes vote are a completely secondary issue for Salmond. What is important is Scotland being an independent, sovereign state - for a nationalist that is all that matters. Salmond's entire strategy is about getting a Yes on 18th September. What happens after that is currently of absolutely no interest to him because with a Yes he has secured everything he has ever wanted for Scotland.
Kevin Timlin @TimlinKevin 23h
"Across Scotland, town halls, community centres and pubs have hosted packed public meetings" http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/18/scottish-independence-scotland … great to see #indyref
Across Scotland, town halls, community centres and pubs have hosted packed public meetings. Many who go are non-nationalist voters, people who usually back Labour, the Scottish Greens, the Liberal Democrats or no party at all. Some listen, arms crossed, not always convinced; many applaud.
Even hardened Scottish National party activists are surprised. They talk of a marked shift in public attitudes in recent months, and a political energy not seen in decades. In many neighbourhoods a switch has been flicked, from off to on. Independence, they argue, no longer belongs to nationalists.
Voters who once closed the door to Yes Scotland canvassers are now opening them, to talk more, to agree or even to sign up. Peter Murrell, the Scottish National party's chief executive, estimates that as many as 100,000 people have volunteered, donated money or helped out in some form – a number some four times as large as the SNP's membership.
Gerry McLaughlan, a veteran SNP organiser who remembers the unsuccessful 1979 devolution referendum, says he has seen a marked change in Stirling. Local meetings, organised by socialist groups, an artists' collective or pro-independence students, are packed out, with more than 100 people turning up at each.
Those who complacently think the campaign on the ground, GOTV and differential turnout won't matter are going to be in for quite a shock.
Thank you. I assume most of the rest above refers to other posters. I don't however, believe that those on the right are any more prone to considering themselves superior than left-wingers - the 'holier than thou' trait is strongly featured among the guardianistas. Your reference to child preference and racism may be an unintended misquote - surely the parent child bond is not racist in the normally accepted view of the term?
I explicitly noted that GOTV/tactical points were important and I have no view, because I have no first hand knowledge - only what you and others have posted.
I was challenging SO's view that Salmond is an exceptional strategist. He isn't. He may be a very good tactician, but that's not the same thing.
Plummeting educational standards, soaring waiting lists and the desperate tactics being employed to keep whistle blowers silent for just one more year.
Marvelous
Not as revealing as this though.
Put him on the national or the international stage and he is no more than a middling performer.
Why not? If you really think Cammie is anything more than the second rate Blair impersonator he always resembles than what's stopping him debating Salmond? Apart from fear of course.
For that matter Sturgeon would have the PR PM on the ropes quickly enough. You have confused the CCHQ spin with reality yet again and seem to think the likes of little Ed, Clegg or Cammie are in any way formidable. They are very far from that and the polling is quite clear. Cammie does good apology and that's about it. A PM who self-evidently fears a debate with Farage, never mind the scottish First Minister, is not a politician to take particularly seriously when even his understudy Clegg will happily debate Nigel. Just because he has the low bar of little Ed at PMQ's (who he doesn't always best lest we forget) certainly doesn't mean Cameron is some kind of political heavyweight. He is the opposite of that.
Firstly, a key part of Putin's power comes from his ability to reward his friends and allies. If that becomes harder it may hurt the regime without hurting the Russian people.
Second, my larger point was that Ukraine is much more likely now, over the next 25 years, to develop into another Poland than another Russia. I play the long game.
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
It's a great pity we couldn't get some of PB's 'finest' to campaign full time for the No campaign.
However that is a bit subtle for Carlotta, Tories take a long time to get it.
Why are my comparisons, which are perfectly good, not something you consider valid?
For all the Zerohedge articles and other doom-mongering from some quarters, I've yet to see anything approaching a coherent alternative position re: how we should deal with Russia and the Ukraine.
Short of direct military intervention, I doubt there's anything we could have done to prevent what has happened in the Crimea. Instead, most of the Atlanticist opinion-formers spend their time warning us of dire consequences and complaining about Obama without suggesting in any way that a President Romney would have done anything different.
We have "enjoyed" a period with one dominant superpower since 1989 but that's not the natural order of things and the Pax Americana some believed would follow the fall of the Berlin Wall (the seminal political, economic and cultural event of our time whose ramifications are still being felt today) and seemed to be here with the liberation of Kuwait has proved to be a chimera.
A new Sino-Russian relationship would not be without its tensions and naturally India is being courted by all sides. How should we respond ? There will be those who will talk about increasing defence spending as though that's some kind of magic bullet - it may make us feel better in some way - but the truth is that in a multi-polar world foreign policy is going to be different and that means having to think differently, sometimes working with those whose values and mores aren't our own but who have a community of interest.
You may not realise there is a difference, but there is.
Salmond's big strategic failure was his failure to get DevoMax on the ballot paper. If he had done that it would have been a triumph. That failure means that - assuming the SNP's apparent tactical advantages [I have no view] are insufficient to get a YES result - he will be dependent on London for any further devolution of powers rather than arguing based a clear mandate from the voters.
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/3/15595.html
But the simple reality is that Cameron has no need to debate with Salmond and so he won't. That's not being cowardly or pathetic or any such emotive bullsh1t. It's just a calculation of the upside potential and the downside risk.
Could we ease up on the abuse, please?
*takes off tin foil hat*
Right now we have the spectacle of SLAB and even little Ed trying to promise more devolution while ruling out massive swathes of powers that would make it anything more than mere window dressing.
So do you think it's strategically beneficial for SLAB and the other Unionist parties to have been so vehemently opposed to more powers and DevoMax on the ballot as SLAB try to persuade the scottish public they really do mean it? Or might that not have been the wisest of moves on their part?
I can assure you that very thin promises of Jam tomorrow are going to be debated and looked at with more than a touch of scepticism by the scottish public after not just that but Douglas-Home and the infamous promise of "something better" in 79.
One can only say what a FANNY you are.
Sky: Images taken on 18th March, 120 nm west of current search area...
How did that turn out?
I disagree that success at the EU elections would say much about Tory chances next year. It's a low turnout election. A little more can be deduced from a poor Tory performance because their voters historically have tended to turn out more for low turnout elections. But given that many voters who would consider themselves loyal Tories will take the opportunity to express their irrational dislike of the EU by voting for UKIP, only a little more.
The significance of the EU elections will be in the parties' reaction to the results, not the results themselves.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary_of_Scottish_slang_and_jargon#F
Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland. His *constitutional* peers are the leaders in Wales and Northern Ireland. You could make a case that, in the absence of a FM of England, the Mayor of London could be considered a peer as well, but that is more debatable.
His constitutional counterpart within the Westminster government is Alistair Carmichael.
As leader of the SNP, his peers are the leader of SCON, SLAB and the other Scottish party that fell down the back of the sofa.
Cameron doesn't figure anywhere on that list.
But you were so sure........
Oh well, another 'certainty' to add to the list.....EU....Nato.....Sterling Zone.....Cameron/Salmond debate.......
Whether it was added as a third question to a ballot paper that people wont see for 6 months is...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjUwJwDCUAA2x-e.jpg
As I said you are out of touch with real life.
However, @MalcomG has a wonderful way with Scots slang words, thankfully I have used them as well.
Much.
Labour did well in 2010 buoyed by increased turnout and will need to be doing well in places like Ealing, Croydon and Brent while the Conservative-LD battles in Sutton, Kingston and Richmond will be illuminating. In my Borough, Newham, the question will be whether Labour wins all 60 seats or only 59.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjUzgj2CYAAGMaU.jpg
And 120km west, not nm.