There’s a quiz on the BBC site ” What political tribe are you”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26689333: I came out as a 6. Cosmopolitan Critics: "Generally younger, more secular and urban-based, worried about growing inequality & the general direction the country is going in.”
At 75, I like the “younger”!
Did you notice how similar Labour and Lib Dem voters are ? Tories are from a different planet, of course.
If one goes to the Populus site one finds that there is also a breakdown by VI. There are no, repeat no Cosmopolitan Critics apparently planning to vote UKIP. That party’s largest segment comes from the Comfortably Nostalgic!
Couldn’t see a gender breakdown. Might be interesting.
Indeed, more generally the poll confirms the degree to which Labour support is potentially the weak link in the unionist camp; once the Don’t Knows are excluded no less than 34% of those who backed Labour in 2011 say they will vote Yes.
Somehow I doubt Malcolm will be denouncing Curtice as a Unionist stooge and lickspittle today.....
As I observed yesterday (and have many times in the past), it really is all down to Labour in Scotland. God help us.....
It's down to the Scots. If they want independence that's what they'll vote for. It looks like we're getting to the point where enough Scottish voters want to separate. If something is coming to an end, it's best to have a clean break. It'll be sad to see the UK go - and, no doubt, traumatic for unionist Scots - but we'll all get over it soon enough, particularly as it will give us the chance to start again from a constitutional perspective.
That's right. Ultimately, it should be a decision for the Scottish people. Dare I say, as it should be for the people of the Crimea who hav e been tossed about like a political football by different dictators at different times without ever having a say themselves. The West's sudden conversion to the principles of "territorial integrity" is interesting as it is hypocritical. It is the same position as that of China.
Kosovo [ where we were correct to intervene ]and Iraq [ where we were utterly wrong to intervene ] were both interferences in the territorial integrity of a country. Thank God, we had the gumption not to get involved in Syria possibly abetting an ultimate Islamist takeover.
And, before anybody jumps at me, yes, the Labour party was just as [ right or wrong ] on this as it is today on the Crimea.
There’s a quiz on the BBC site ” What political tribe are you”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26689333: I came out as a 6. Cosmopolitan Critics: "Generally younger, more secular and urban-based, worried about growing inequality & the general direction the country is going in.”
At 75, I like the “younger”!
Did you notice how similar Labour and Lib Dem voters are ? Tories are from a different planet, of course.
If one goes to the Populus site one finds that there is also a breakdown by VI. There are no, repeat no Cosmopolitan Critics apparently planning to vote UKIP. That party’s largest segment comes from the Comfortably Nostalgic!
Couldn’t see a gender breakdown. Might be interesting.
UKIP support is overwhelmingly male as I recall. So is Scottish independence !
I started with the belief that following the money might give a better indication as to how things were likely to turn out. I am not sure about that now but the banter and differing viewpoints are always entertaining.
Your initial belief was correct: prices are important fragments of information in markets, including political markets.
And, if Shadsy's prices are any guide (and they usually are) the long-heralded Scottish Tory "surge" is still not with us.
Ladbrokes - West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine (LD maj = 3,684)
LD 8/11 Con 6/4 SNP 8/1 Lab 33/1 UKIP 100/1
That seat really should be "nailed-on" for Davidson's bunch. Just look at its demographics. The fact that you are not FAV has a lot to do with the laughable state of the SCon GOTV operation.
No-backers: beware the GOTV.
Well Stuart one of the things that I have learned is that this is not necessarily correct. The bookies run a book to make a profit. The odds are based on the money placed, not on some superior wisdom. If those placing the money have access to inside or additional information then the fact they are willing to put their money where their mouth is might get some insight on that information but many punters have no more information than most and less than many.
Unless there is a marked improvement in the polling of the Scottish Lib Dems they will lose West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine. I think it is likely to fall into the tories grasp rather than being won and I agree the tories are very weak on ground. It may not matter though if the Lib Dems fall apart.
Happy birthday to PB, and thanks to everyone who works behind the scenes.
PB is really the best political discussion site on the web, and I'm thankful that non-bettors are welcome to discuss HS2 in boring detailssquirrelsthe latest political events.
I'll second that JJ.
Well done Mike on PB's first decennial - and long may it continue in good health.
Agree, Mr Surbiton. I find the “official” Western position on the Crimea somewhat hypocritical. It’s not as if the boundaries of the Ukraine, or then population, have been consistent over the years. And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
- "... Spain’s current government is ideologically opposed to granting any more freedom to Catalonia than it currently enjoys. Indeed, quite the contrary. In its drive to further centralise and consolidate power in Madrid, it is going in the exact opposite direction, to the increasing fury of not only Catalans but regional politicians throughout the country."
That is Spanish (and British) nationalism in a nutshell: they cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Spanish nationalism was born out of Francoism and taps into a particularly Spanish form of stubborness which sees compromise as unGodly. You see the same kind of thing among a lot of Catalan nationalists, ironically enough. British nationalism has always struck me as being rather more pragmatic - hence the referendum.
The reason why Devomax could not have been on the ballot in September is that it would involve a decision of everyone in the UK, not just the Scots, whereas independence Yes or No is a Scottish only issue.
On the devomax issue, there are two things Mr C could have done:
1. Denied Devomax, but not claimed credit quite so publicly and crowingly and pretended it was a defeat for the indy side.
2. Accepted Devomax, and then exerted leadership on the rest of the UK to to bring it about. Whether this was practical with the Tory backbenchers, for a start, is another matter; but he could have said "look here, this means we instantly win the referendum, so just shut up, OK?".
But anyway happy birthday to the site and I will be interested to see the newspaper headlines two years tomorrow!
Great to see you standing up for the Human Rights Act and fighting against non-human rights compliant practices!
An utterly false assertion there. What makes you think you can get away with such rubbish claims unchallenged? It is akin to describing Britain as pro-jihadist because both are opposed to the Assad regime.
That's right. Ultimately, it should be a decision for the Scottish people. Dare I say, as it should be for the people of the Crimea who hav e been tossed about like a political football by different dictators at different times without ever having a say themselves. The West's sudden conversion to the principles of "territorial integrity" is interesting as it is hypocritical. It is the same position as that of China.
Kosovo [ where we were correct to intervene ]and Iraq [ where we were utterly wrong to intervene ] were both interferences in the territorial integrity of a country. Thank God, we had the gumption not to get involved in Syria possibly abetting an ultimate Islamist takeover.
And, before anybody jumps at me, yes, the Labour party was just as [ right or wrong ] on this as it is today on the Crimea.
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "territorial integrity" when you refer to Iraq, at least (I don't recall enough about the details of Kosovo, although from memory there had been a freeish vote for independence).
Basically it means that the big guys shouldn't go round cutting chunks of the little guys. The West uses it to stick up for the little guys - China uses it to justify the occupation of Tibet.
Fundamentally, though, the real principle is that the big guys shouldn't beat up the little guys unless they pose a threat. However flawed the execution, I think Afghanistan stacks up on that criteria; Iraq clearly less so, although I am prepared to believe that Bush et al *believed* that it did.
(If Crimera was to hold a free & fair referendum - impossible in the current situation - and decide to move to Russia then fair play to them).
Congratulations Mike and thanks to everyone who has helped run the site. From a bookmaker's point of view I expect the combined expertise on here has cost us a few quid down the years.
Agree, Mr Surbiton. I find the “official” Western position on the Crimea somewhat hypocritical. It’s not as if the boundaries of the Ukraine, or then population, have been consistent over the years. And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
Absolutely. What about Palestine ? They are being cemented out, olive grove after olive grove, day after day.
Just a quick note to say thanks to Mike for running such an excellent site for 10 years, and to Robert for keeping the ship on the road.
It's been a pleasure to be involved, first as no more than a lurker, then contributing occasional and cautious comments, then being drawn in more and more to the wonderful community pbc is.
I'd also like to thank Mike for firstly asking me to write the articles I have over the years - of which I've done about 250 now, over five years - and also for the freedom he gives me in topic, analysis and content, even when I know my view runs directly opposite to his (as yesterday!). With the exception of the occasional edit for legal reasons, I can't think of any time when they've not run as written.
I'd love to stay for the day but other duties press. Good luck to all and Happy Birthday pbc!!
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Agree, Mr Surbiton. I find the “official” Western position on the Crimea somewhat hypocritical. It’s not as if the boundaries of the Ukraine, or then population, have been consistent over the years. And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
Great to see you standing up for the Human Rights Act and fighting against non-human rights compliant practices!
An utterly false assertion there. What makes you think you can get away with such rubbish claims unchallenged? It is akin to describing Britain as pro-jihadist because both are opposed to the Assad regime.
I'm paraphrasing the article:
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world.
Are you arguing that Sharia law is Human Rights compliant?
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
Congratulations Mike and thanks to everyone who has helped run the site. From a bookmaker's point of view I expect the combined expertise on here has cost us a few quid down the years.
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Agree, Mr Surbiton. I find the “official” Western position on the Crimea somewhat hypocritical. It’s not as if the boundaries of the Ukraine, or then population, have been consistent over the years. And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
I fear VP’s logic doesn’t work like that! However, the logic of William Hagues position escapes me.
@Carnyx - "2. Accepted Devomax, and then exerted leadership on the rest of the UK to to bring it about. Whether this was practical with the Tory backbenchers, for a start, is another matter; but he could have said "look here, this means we instantly win the referendum, so just shut up, OK?"."
I have no idea on this, but would the SNP have been content to wait for a UK-wide Devomax settlement to have been agreed before holding a referendum? It's not something that could have been carved out of thin air, it would have taken time to sort out.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
Quite. There is no suggestion that these rules will apply to non-Muslims (the kind of Muslim who wants a Sharia-compliant will wouldn't even leave his turds to an infidel). For the Law Society to have acted in any way other than it did would have been religious discrimination.
Of course, just because such discrimination is and - please God - will stay unlawful, doesn't mean that every last Peebie has to agree...
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I think many of the instinctive anti-sharia people know zilch about sharia principles. They don't like it because it is Islamic.
Some will associate Sharia with FGM. It has nothing to do with it.
Many Tories might even support Capital funding, the Sharia way. For example, the borrower does not pay interest but has to pay dividends out of profit. Therefore, all lenders are stakeholders , however, small.
Congratulations to Mike and the gang for their 10-year anniversary! Apparently we're supposed to get you something made from either tin or aluminium ...
(Oh, and on the Diplomacy game - many thanks to the players for making me welcome when I stepped in (it was me, not AndyJS :-) ) and thanks to all for an enjoyable game. I've also never come anywhere near a 7-way draw before!)
I thought so. I used to work with a rabbi who decided beth din cases. I went to lunch with him once at Blooms - a very old school Jewish restaurant in the East End (now gone) - and the waiters treated him like royalty because he was one of the people who decided whether their kosher certificate was renewed or not. It was a strange experience seeing Blooms waiters being so pleasant.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Agree, Mr Surbiton. I find the “official” Western position on the Crimea somewhat hypocritical. It’s not as if the boundaries of the Ukraine, or then population, have been consistent over the years. And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
I fear VP’s logic doesn’t work like that! However, the logic of William Hagues position escapes me.
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Agree, Mr Surbiton. I find the “official” Western position on the Crimea somewhat hypocritical. It’s not as if the boundaries of the Ukraine, or then population, have been consistent over the years. And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
I do not think for a moment Putin's referendum idea in Crimea was about the will of the people. Then why not Kharkiv and Donetsk ? They are just as Russian and want to be part of Russia, just as much.
Putin wanted the Crimea in Russia now that the Ukraine has gone Western for the same reasons as the West [ NATO here ]. The warm water ports of the Black Sea.
There are significant bits in Acts on this issue. Saul/Paul won the discussion and new converts were not required to follow Kosher rules. This marks the beginning of Christianity proper, prior to that it was best considered a Jewish reformist sect.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
It came as surprise to me when I saw on Countryfile that Kosher meat is slaughtered by exsanguination with unstunned animals. Not only this, but the hindquarters are not used and passed on into the normal food chain with no labelling to state it is Kosher. This means that there is little or no chance of exclusively selecting meat from animals slaughtered after being stunned.
Great to see you standing up for the Human Rights Act and fighting against non-human rights compliant practices!
An utterly false assertion there. What makes you think you can get away with such rubbish claims unchallenged? It is akin to describing Britain as pro-jihadist because both are opposed to the Assad regime.
I'm paraphrasing the article:
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world.
Are you arguing that Sharia law is Human Rights compliant?
No, I am arguing that it is an utterly false assertion to claim that because one opposes the legitimisation of Sharia law one is automatically standing up for the Human Rights Act as you asserted.
The enemy of mine enemy is not always my friend.
And of course the comment you highlight is wrong anyway since UK Human Rights Law has not all been democratically determined; a significant proportion of it has been imposed without reference to the British public at all.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
Whatever their origins they should not be considered legitimate simply because they contain an element of religious belief.
And yes that applies to Jewish and Christian practices as much as Muslim if they run counter to the established law of the land. Exception for religious purposes should not be a factor in determining laws.
Congratulations to Mike and the gang for their 10-year anniversary! Apparently we're supposed to get you something made from either tin or aluminium ...
(Oh, and on the Diplomacy game - many thanks to the players for making me welcome when I stepped in (it was me, not AndyJS :-) ) and thanks to all for an enjoyable game. I've also never come anywhere near a 7-way draw before!)
Maybe a few of us could donate our tinfoil hats :-)
A significant anniversary for a very significant site. Thank you to our host for a brilliant virtual meeting place, and thank you to all those involved in running the site. It must be hard work.
It's always been the case that you can do what you like in your will (ignoring some dull exceptions about purpose trusts and remoteness of vesting and such), including disposing of your estate in accordance with the principles of Klingon law if that's what takes your fancy. Giving guidance on the nuts and bolts of how to do so is a useful service, if enough testators want to do it that way, and does not amount to "adopting Klingon law". Nor is the law society "British legal chiefs" in any sane sense of the words.
Always amazing how little rope a Kipper needs to hang himself with.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
Whatever their origins they should not be considered legitimate simply because they contain an element of religious belief.
And yes that applies to Jewish and Christian practices as much as Muslim if they run counter to the established law of the land. Exception for religious purposes should not be a factor in determining laws.
Yes, I would go along with that as long as it applied to all religions not just another Islam bashing law.
Just a quick note to say a huge congratulations to Mike Smithson on reaching pb.com's 10th anniversary. I first starting reading regularly in 2005 - prior to the "are you thinking what we're thinking?" election - and became a periodic poster in 2006. I haven't (really) left since, despite long barren spells of no posting activity from me.
I'd also like to thank the editorial and moderation team for keeping the show on the road. I have too many favourite posters here to single out but, like many others, it's the long-standing, less emotional and less hyper-partisan ones I tend to make a beeline for.
I say this with no hint of hyperbole: politicalbetting.com is the best website on the internet. It has given me immense pleasure over the years and is my favourite site (by far) to read for news, politics and sharing general knowledge. I've learnt a huge amount here from a wide range of intelligent, insightful and engaging posters from all walks of life and all points of view.
If (just occassionally) there can be petty provactions and arguments amongst some posters who should know better, these are thankfully rare - or else easily ignored.
Pb.com: there is simply nothing else like it anywhere else. Nor will there ever be.
This is an issue for many. I do not object to Kosher or Halal slaughter being practiced, but I do want all food to be labelled accordingly so that I can avoid it if I choose. Eating pork is the best way to avoid these slaughter techniques at the moment. All New Zealand Lamb is Halal for example.
I think the exsanguination requirement comes from the belief that the soul is in the blood, and that Kosher and Halal foods therefore do not contaminate the soul of the consumer. The Jehovahs Witnesses take a similar reason for objecting to blood transfusions.
Other rules are more obscure such as it not being Kosher to eat meat within an hour of dairy products. I flat shared with a Jewish medical student who followed Kosher practice as far as he could. His view was that there was no logic to the rules and did not need to be, the purpose was to follow Gods commands in the little things in preparation for following the commands in the bigger things.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
It came as surprise to me when I saw on Countryfile that Kosher meat is slaughtered by exsanguination with unstunned animals. Not only this, but the hindquarters are not used and passed on into the normal food chain with no labelling to state it is Kosher. This means that there is little or no chance of exclusively selecting meat from animals slaughtered after being stunned.
I started with the belief that following the money might give a better indication as to how things were likely to turn out. I am not sure about that now but the banter and differing viewpoints are always entertaining.
Your initial belief was correct: prices are important fragments of information in markets, including political markets.
And, if Shadsy's prices are any guide (and they usually are) the long-heralded Scottish Tory "surge" is still not with us.
Ladbrokes - West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine (LD maj = 3,684)
LD 8/11 Con 6/4 SNP 8/1 Lab 33/1 UKIP 100/1
That seat really should be "nailed-on" for Davidson's bunch. Just look at its demographics. The fact that you are not FAV has a lot to do with the laughable state of the SCon GOTV operation.
No-backers: beware the GOTV.
Well Stuart one of the things that I have learned is that this is not necessarily correct. The bookies run a book to make a profit. The odds are based on the money placed, not on some superior wisdom. If those placing the money have access to inside or additional information then the fact they are willing to put their money where their mouth is might get some insight on that information but many punters have no more information than most and less than many.
Unless there is a marked improvement in the polling of the Scottish Lib Dems they will lose West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine. I think it is likely to fall into the tories grasp rather than being won and I agree the tories are very weak on ground. It may not matter though if the Lib Dems fall apart.
Of course prices can be "wrong". Witness that Northern Ireland seat where the winner was 14/1 the day before the UK GE 2010. But such astonishing "mis-pricing" is extraordinarily rare. The FAV nearly always wins. That does not stop us looking for the exceptions which prove the rule.
I suspect that you are correct and that Shadsy has priced West Aberdeenshire wrongly. That CON price of 6/4 looks value to me. Even if it shortened to EVS it would probably still be value. The main worry is not so much the LDs holding on but rather the SNP nipping through the middle.
What is it you're objecting to here specifically? These invisible-superhero-believers seem to be making legal contracts under British law - are you saying the courts should be throwing them out, or is the thought that the contracts should be enforceable, but lawyers should refuse to tell their clients how to write them?
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
Whatever their origins they should not be considered legitimate simply because they contain an element of religious belief.
And yes that applies to Jewish and Christian practices as much as Muslim if they run counter to the established law of the land. Exception for religious purposes should not be a factor in determining laws.
Yes, I would go along with that as long as it applied to all religions not just another Islam bashing law.
Absolutely. I dislike all religions equally :-)
More seriously, putting aside my militant atheism, the point is not so much that a law has or has not a religious basis, but that it is applied equally across the whole country. If we decide it is okay to bleed animals to death whilst they are still conscious then it should be legal for all people not just certain religious minorities. Alternatively if we decide something is against the law then again that should apply to all with no exemption for religious belief.
But those who say the whole country is clamouring for a referendum are wrong. Some, certainly, think it is the greatest question of our time. But even among the most hostile voters, only a third put Europe among the most crucial issues facing the country, and only a quarter think it important to them and their families. That is why Cameron’s “negotiate and decide” policy will please some voters but won’t win the election all by itself.
Mr Camyx, forgive my ignorance, but what’s scheduled to happen on March 24th 2016?
Sorry, just found a reference. Didn’t see last weeks Observer.
Sorry, on reflection that was a bit too recherche of me!
No, Mr Carnyx ..... sorry about earlier misspelling ....... no apology necessary. As taffys says this site can be very educational. As an example, while trawling for that I found a site which has answered another question which has been worrying me for a while!
@Carnyx - "2. Accepted Devomax, and then exerted leadership on the rest of the UK to to bring it about. Whether this was practical with the Tory backbenchers, for a start, is another matter; but he could have said "look here, this means we instantly win the referendum, so just shut up, OK?"."
I have no idea on this, but would the SNP have been content to wait for a UK-wide Devomax settlement to have been agreed before holding a referendum? It's not something that could have been carved out of thin air, it would have taken time to sort out.
That's an interesting and very good point, in the best spirits of PB debate which we celebrate today, which hadn't occurred to me. My initial reaction, thinking out loud, would be that unionists would [edit: or should at least] have realised that a referendum was inevitable the morning after the Scottish elections of May 2011 (whatever their public statements) and that they knew that they either had to agree to it or provoke a worse, Catalonia-style, crisis by denying the democratic mandate (etc.) given to the SNP. They also knew that Mr S and the SNP had promised a referendum in the latter part of the administration - ergo in 2.5 years min and about 4.5 max. Time enough surely to man up and address what is undoubtedly a very profound constitutional issue not only across the Coalition but including Labour as well.
Of course, it was Mr Salmond and the SNP that insisted on a late, 2014, referendum, and the Unionists who suddenly wanted to bring it on and have it immediately (remember, there was all that stuff about it being unacceptably in Bannockburn septencentenary year so we had to have it in 2013, till it was pointed out that this was Flodden quincentenary (sp?) year). And of course there are other issues involved (e.g. the 2014 date means that being seen in bed with Tories becomes a serious issue for Labour with the UKGE of 2015 approaching).
But even so, there would seem to have been plenty of time to look and be statesmanlike, even after the Edinburgh Agreement of January 2013. I could very easily convince myself that that approach would have paid huge dividends in contrast to the one actually taken. It would have staved off indy for another decade or two at least.
I know there is a doctrine (under the conveniently unwritten constitution) that the decisions of one administration at Westminster don't bind the next, but if an all-party agreement could be reached then the implications of later breaching it would have been so serious that a de facto binding agreement could have been achieved, presumably.
The question of whether devomax (ie all except defence and external relations) could be accepted by EWNI is perhaps another matter, but if it meant saving the union for the foreseeable future with the minimum of grief ...?
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Agree, Mr Surbiton. I find the “official” Western position on the Crimea somewhat hypocritical. It’s not as if the boundaries of the Ukraine, or then population, have been consistent over the years. And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
That's exactly the point I made yesterday.
I think Putin has made a strategic mistake in the context of the long arc of history.
I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of congratulations to Our Genial Host on this particularly auspicious days. 10 years is a long-time for any enterprise to be successful - in blogging years, it's a lifetime.
I am comparative neophyte compared to the 2004 pioneers - I only discovered the site (and indeed the political blogosphere) in mid-2007. It took me months to leave a comment (not under this username) and it was the kindness of the response by Peter the Punter which convinced me this was a place I should spend more time. When Mike was going away in December 2007, he invited guest articles, and I sent him a rubbish piece on the betting for the next Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.
The story of how I became more involved in PB is one of sheer serendipity. I used to eat Saturday brunch at a particular table at a particular cafe each weekend. One weekend shortly after the guest article, I was reading Mike's excellent book 'The Political Punter'. The chap at the table next to me said: "Do you know he has a really good website?", and I said "As a matter of fact, I've just had an article published on it about Archbishops". The man smiled, and said "You must be Morus? I'm 'Double Carpet' and I'm covering for Mike while he's on holiday". The rest, as they say, is history.
I spent a couple of years as a community moderator elsewhere, and I stand by the claim that there is no better community on the internet than PB.com. I won't name check anyone, as failure to mention will be bound to offend, but the range of intelligent, funny and kindhearted comment on here has been a source of joy for at least the last 7 years for me, even though I can't devote as much time to the site as I did previously. This is a true, flesh-and-blood community, never better demonstrated than when we lost our dear friend SBS. The people I met through the PB.com events - or even just through comment threads - have become my dear friends as well as political sparring partners.
The 2008 US election still dominates my memories of the site - from the Obama speech after Iowa, to the Hillary spike in New Hampshire, the Super Tuesday extravaganza, and the super delegate shenanigans. I got to cover the Obama nominating convention in Denver for a week (the Denver Diary was, I think, 22,000 words of unedited prose. Special), and then we had the Palin nomination, and the invasion of South Ossetia, and the continued Global Financial Crisis, then an awesome US election night with PBers north of King's X. Nick Palmer MP doing PhD-level maths on the counties of Indiana, and my insistence that Nebraska would split its ECVs (correct) and that Georgia might swing blue (very not correct).
But also, the Gordon Brown years. The Election That Never Was, the arrest of Damian Green, the David Davis resignation and by-election, the election of Jon Bercow as Speaker, the David Miliband non-resignation after the Local Elections in 2009, the changing of the date of the Glenrothes By-election because of an article on this website, the founding of coalition, Baroness Ashton taking Mandelson's expected job as EU Foreign Minister. How many of Morus' Saturday Slants came out of the King Lear-esque trundle of Labour's last years?
OGH was my first ever editor, and the first person to ever give me a platform to write for a real audience (and what an audience). I used to write on Friday nights, publish around 2-4 a.m. then snap awake at 8am, terrified of what the initial reaction to my piece would be. Living in fear of your audience, because they are insightful critics as well as subject-matter experts, is the only way to improve as a young writer, and if I got any better at all, it was because of the feedback I got below the line. Because of Mike, I got to know other bloggers and to learn the Westminster village. Because of Mike, I was invited to edit the Election Guide by Iain Dale. Because of Mike, I had the clips to spend the most remarkable year at Columbia Journalism School, which in turn secured me a job at the Guardian during law school. All of that came from Mike trusting me, and words cannot express how grateful I am to him for his trust, and mentorship and friendship.
Happy 10th birthday, PoliticalBetting.com, and congratulations Mike.
Putin's actions in the Crimea have been contingency plans for some time. The whole sequence of occupation, referendum, incorporation within Russia and eviction of Ukrainian forces has followed very detailed and long thought out plans.
I think his next step will be to destabilise the East and South of the Ukraine politically through local Russian speakers resisting Kiev control; economically by restricting trade with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to 'approved' partners; and militarily by using incursions selectively to control civil unrest or threats to economic interests.
The Russian army will also remain massed on the Ukraine border with the implicit threat that any military intervention by NATO or its allies will result in a full invasion.
The net effect of these actions will be to make it difficult, expensive and unrewarding for the EU and US to incorporate Eastern Ukraine into their 'western' sphere of influence.
The situation in the Ukraine will either deteriorate into widespread civil unrest - a "civil war" - and 'justify' invasion by Russia, or, it will stagnate as a failed and ungovernable state.
Both outcomes would suit Putin. An invasion which restored order would not result in a military response from the Western powers and would give him maximum power in any subsequent negotiations.
Even a stalemate would work the same way, but on a longer timescale. The threat of unilateral escalation would make it difficult for the West to make a major and meaningful intervention and also keep 'NATO' away from the western banks of the Dnieper.
I am not sure Putin wants to occupy the Ukraine or even to bring the whole country into Russia's sphere of influence. His goal is to keep the Ukraine's destiny within his power and to avoid further NATO encroachment. Asset stripping the South and East or splitting the country on Russian terms is the most likely outcome.
Putin will want to restrict the West to a demilitarised and deindustrialised Eastern Ukraine, with the costs of supporting its development on the US and the EU's books.
For all Obama's and the EU's sable rattling, I cannot see any other outcome. And the irony is that, as soon as we openly recognise this state of play, Putin will suddenly become the most reasonable of negotiators.
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
Providing that it doesn't limit the minimum rights accorded to all British citizens (such as the rights of women in a divorce) then I don't have a problem with this.
That said, I would hope that the courts would have the courage to overturn a manifest injustice - for instance a perverse disinheritance - regardless of whether a will is written under Sharia or English law.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
Early Christians *were* Jews. They simply believed that the Messiah had already been revealed.
It was only when Paul won his argument with James The Brother Of Jesus about the mission to the Gentiles (and then all the factors that facilitate the development of the religion throughout the Roman Empire) that divergence began.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
Providing that it doesn't limit the minimum rights accorded to all British citizens (such as the rights of women in a divorce) then I don't have a problem with this.
That said, I would hope that the courts would have the courage to overturn a manifest injustice - for instance a perverse disinheritance - regardless of whether a will is written under Sharia or English law.
A "perverse disinheritance" is not possible in Sharia law. In fact, the rules are laid down. You would have a better objection regarding the fairness of the distribution. For example, male children get two shares to one for each female child. Then again, the UK law does not stop that either.
Congratulations to Mike and the gang for their 10-year anniversary! Apparently we're supposed to get you something made from either tin or aluminium ...
(Oh, and on the Diplomacy game - many thanks to the players for making me welcome when I stepped in (it was me, not AndyJS :-) ) and thanks to all for an enjoyable game. I've also never come anywhere near a 7-way draw before!)
Oops, sorry - I thought AndyJS was your current posting name! Can't you call yourself something like Ozymandias so even the dimmest of us can keep it straight? But again, you did a great job!
This is an issue for many. I do not object to Kosher or Halal slaughter being practiced, but I do want all food to be labelled accordingly so that I can avoid it if I choose. Eating pork is the best way to avoid these slaughter techniques at the moment. All New Zealand Lamb is Halal for example.
I think the exsanguination requirement comes from the belief that the soul is in the blood, and that Kosher and Halal foods therefore do not contaminate the soul of the consumer. The Jehovahs Witnesses take a similar reason for objecting to blood transfusions.
Other rules are more obscure such as it not being Kosher to eat meat within an hour of dairy products. I flat shared with a Jewish medical student who followed Kosher practice as far as he could. His view was that there was no logic to the rules and did not need to be, the purpose was to follow Gods commands in the little things in preparation for following the commands in the bigger things.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
It came as surprise to me when I saw on Countryfile that Kosher meat is slaughtered by exsanguination with unstunned animals. Not only this, but the hindquarters are not used and passed on into the normal food chain with no labelling to state it is Kosher. This means that there is little or no chance of exclusively selecting meat from animals slaughtered after being stunned.
My understanding - but this is a vague recollection - was that it is really a public health matter. If you are in a hot country without refrigeration then you need to avoid wormy meats such as pork or foods like shellfish that are likely to make you ill.
This is an issue for many. I do not object to Kosher or Halal slaughter being practiced, but I do want all food to be labelled accordingly so that I can avoid it if I choose. Eating pork is the best way to avoid these slaughter techniques at the moment. All New Zealand Lamb is Halal for example.
I think the exsanguination requirement comes from the belief that the soul is in the blood, and that Kosher and Halal foods therefore do not contaminate the soul of the consumer. The Jehovahs Witnesses take a similar reason for objecting to blood transfusions.
Other rules are more obscure such as it not being Kosher to eat meat within an hour of dairy products. I flat shared with a Jewish medical student who followed Kosher practice as far as he could. His view was that there was no logic to the rules and did not need to be, the purpose was to follow Gods commands in the little things in preparation for following the commands in the bigger things.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
It came as surprise to me when I saw on Countryfile that Kosher meat is slaughtered by exsanguination with unstunned animals. Not only this, but the hindquarters are not used and passed on into the normal food chain with no labelling to state it is Kosher. This means that there is little or no chance of exclusively selecting meat from animals slaughtered after being stunned.
My understanding - but this is a vague recollection - was that it is really a public health matter. If you are in a hot country without refrigeration then you need to avoid wormy meats such as pork or foods like shellfish that are likely to make you ill.
Congrats on Mike and co on 10 years. I've been visiting the site on and off since a few months before the last euro elections (can't remember what my nom de plume was back then on the old comments system). As now spent more time lurking and reading the posts of others. There's always been something to entertain or inform on every thread (especially AV threads). Like many on here I don't bet that often but if I were to I'd feel relatively better informed and would hopefully look for the value rather than just bet on the outcome I want.
So congrats to Mike, Robert, the mods and the guest editors and contributers for making this a place I still want to visit five years on and a boo hiss for the few nasty little trolls who remain that try and wreck interesting (and occasionally heated) debates with views across the political spectrum.
But those who say the whole country is clamouring for a referendum are wrong. Some, certainly, think it is the greatest question of our time. But even among the most hostile voters, only a third put Europe among the most crucial issues facing the country, and only a quarter think it important to them and their families. That is why Cameron’s “negotiate and decide” policy will please some voters but won’t win the election all by itself.
What that poll shows more than anything is that people still have little idea about trade with the EU and that a strong campaign of information by BOO on options after leaving the EU and the fact that membership of EFTA would see us keep all our trading rights even though we had left the EU could seriously swing the opinions of a large proportion of those who would currently rather play it safe and stay in.
We could also kill a lot of the myths about exactly how much of our trade depended on EU membership.
That is Spanish (and British) nationalism in a nutshell: they cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Then why has further power been devolved to Scotland in the 2012 Act that is already on the books?
. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012. This Act, described at the time of its enactment by the then Secretary of State for Scotland as the largest transfer of fiscal powers within the United Kingdom in its history, will bring to Holyrood a substantial degree of fiscal devolution. These new powers — as long as Scotland votes No to independence — will come fully into force in 2015 and 2016. Now, this is not “jam tomorrow”, as Nationalists sometimes claim: it has already been legislated for.
It may not be enough for you, but to assert, as some Nats do, that a "no" will lead to a roll-back of devolution - when more is already on the statute books is to use Malcolm's favourite charge - a "lie".
That is due to the fact that they are devolving nothing. The sham of changing tax rates while getting your pocket money cut is just an insult thought up by idiots. The majority of the power resides in Westnminster and the few crumbs given stay at their whim only. Independence is the only way to get rid of the dead hand of London and the blood sucking unionists ( Scottish , English , Welsh , etc ensconced there). Labour are the worst , at least the Tories are happy to say they are nasty.
Congratulations Mike and Co on your birthday. Ten years in the digital era has got to be worth 25 analogue years and 50 newspapers years. Perhaps a telegram from Tim Berners-Lee is en route. Or a plain text email. Or a tweet maybe.
Off topic, something I only realised today is that there are going to be TWO EU debates between Clegg vs Farage: one on LBC on 26 March, hosted by Nick Ferrari, and one on BBC Two on 2 April, hosted by David Dimbleby.
That's a lot of exposure to the extreme positions. It's bound to affect the terms by which a chunk of voters vote. And in that binary context voting Labour or Conservative is sitting on the fence ie something that people don't like doing. It's certainly a good move by both smaller parties.
It also opens up the possibility that the GE debates won't necessarily be limited to just three debates on the main TV channels like last time. For instance, say Farage challenged Clegg to debate in the run up the general election? Clegg couldn't say no without looking shifty, given that Farage accepted his offer of an EU debate. And there'd be plenty of media outlets willing to broadcast it.
It's always been the case that you can do what you like in your will (ignoring some dull exceptions about purpose trusts and remoteness of vesting and such), including disposing of your estate in accordance with the principles of Klingon law if that's what takes your fancy. Giving guidance on the nuts and bolts of how to do so is a useful service, if enough testators want to do it that way, and does not amount to "adopting Klingon law". Nor is the law society "British legal chiefs" in any sane sense of the words.
Always amazing how little rope a Kipper needs to hang himself with.
I don't want any part of Sharia Law touching English law that's been laid down bit by bit since Magna Carta. It's the thin edge of the wedge. Once it is established that Sharia is part of the British legal code, then we will have a flood of special Sharia exceptions and it won't end there. This is what those exhorters of Islam want - like a fifth column in the body of the country. If this is seen as an anti islamist stance - well it is, so there.
- "Quite a few of the 2004 class of PBers are still with us – Sean Fear, Innocent Abroad, Nick Palmer, JackW (whoever he is) to name but a few. "
Well, I started posting way back in the first few months. I'm pretty sure I was posting long before Jack W appeared. PB and UKPR were a breath of fresh air in the political blogging world, which was really starting to take off at that point.
PB is I'm afraid a shadow of its former self. Most of the serious punters, who were the heart and soul of the site, have abandoned it long ago. They have been replaced by party staffers who are quite obviously churning out re-drafted press material, and who have access to the party rebuttal databases.
Add in some of the absolutely horrific moderating decisions over the years, and the culture of bullying which has been positively encouraged, and PB is more an agent of harm than good.
I just cannot see it lasting another 10 years, so enjoy it while it lasts.
More posters like Andrea, Edmund in Tokyo and J**** K**** please, and fewer like Mark Senior, Fitalass and Jack W.
Indeed, more generally the poll confirms the degree to which Labour support is potentially the weak link in the unionist camp; once the Don’t Knows are excluded no less than 34% of those who backed Labour in 2011 say they will vote Yes.
Somehow I doubt Malcolm will be denouncing Curtice as a Unionist stooge and lickspittle today.....
As I observed yesterday (and have many times in the past), it really is all down to Labour in Scotland. God help us.....
This is another new poll showing move to YES. It is very noteworthy that Curtice has modified his position, he must see which way the wind is blowingh as he sees NO heading for the toilet. Herald has moved considerably recently and only the Daily Retard and the toilet paper Scotsman are trying to pretend that NO is doing well. Come May when we see YES on parity or ahead it will be joyful to behold the panic.
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Arguably he couldn't have stopped the EU from expanding up to his borders anyhow, in which case it makes sense to peel off whatever strategically-important bits he can get away with.
I do not think that the case, just a post hoc rationalisation. Pork and Shellfish are core parts of the diet in equally hot parts of the world such as China and South East Asia. Coptic Christians eat pork in Egypt, often deliberately so to emphasise that they are not Muslim. You may remember that Jesus cast out devils into swine, so swine were certainly kept in Galillee. I am sure that the reasons are religious rather than hygenic, not least that there have been no obvious detriments to these pork eating peoples.
This is an issue for many. I do not object to Kosher or Halal slaughter being practiced, but I do want all food to be labelled accordingly so that I can avoid it if I choose. Eating pork is the best way to avoid these slaughter techniques at the moment. All New Zealand Lamb is Halal for example.
I think the exsanguination requirement comes from the belief that the soul is in the blood, and that Kosher and Halal foods therefore do not contaminate the soul of the consumer. The Jehovahs Witnesses take a similar reason for objecting to blood transfusion.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
It came as surprise to me when I saw on Countryfile that Kosher meat is slaughtered by exsanguination with unstunned animals. Not only this, but the hindquarters are not used and passed on into the normal food chain with no labelling to state it is Kosher. This means that there is little or no chance of exclusively selecting meat from animals slaughtered after being stunned.
My understanding - but this is a vague recollection - was that it is really a public health matter. If you are in a hot country without refrigeration then you need to avoid wormy meats such as pork or foods like shellfish that are likely to make you ill.
Indeed, more generally the poll confirms the degree to which Labour support is potentially the weak link in the unionist camp; once the Don’t Knows are excluded no less than 34% of those who backed Labour in 2011 say they will vote Yes.
Somehow I doubt Malcolm will be denouncing Curtice as a Unionist stooge and lickspittle today.....
As I observed yesterday (and have many times in the past), it really is all down to Labour in Scotland. God help us.....
It's down to the Scots. If they want independence that's what they'll vote for. It looks like we're getting to the point where enough Scottish voters want to separate. If something is coming to an end, it's best to have a clean break.
Agreed - which is why Salmond's horse feathers about "social unions" and "currency unions" is worrying - if Scotland wakes up to "Yes" on the 19th, it will be a very different "Yes" from the one the SNP have sold them.
Without question. But why would Salmond or the SNP care? They'll have what they want.
Hopefully, the Scots would build on their good fortune, ditch the SNP and forge ahead with better and more honest politicians.
I'm in the 'Better Apart' camp; I can see the benefits of being separated. Those who might be left in rUK should have been given a say in Scottish Independence too.
Surprise surprise we have much in common, apart from the last bit
This is an issue for many. I do not object to Kosher or Halal slaughter being practiced, but I do want all food to be labelled accordingly so that I can avoid it if I choose. Eating pork is the best way to avoid these slaughter techniques at the moment. All New Zealand Lamb is Halal for example.
I think the exsanguination requirement comes from the belief that the soul is in the blood, and that Kosher and Halal foods therefore do not contaminate the soul of the consumer. The Jehovahs Witnesses take a similar reason for objecting to blood transfusions.
Other rules are more obscure such as it not being Kosher to eat meat within an hour of dairy products. I flat shared with a Jewish medical student who followed Kosher practice as far as he could. His view was that there was no logic to the rules and did not need to be, the purpose was to follow Gods commands in the little things in preparation for following the commands in the bigger things.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the same has applied to Jewish law for a fair few years now. Sharia law is already recognised in UK law via the enforceability of Islamic financing.
I also find some PBers [ actually, only Socrates comes to mind straightaway ] who will attack, Halal practices and possibly Male circumcision but surprisingly keep quite about Kosher food.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
It came as surprise to me when I saw on Countryfile that Kosher meat is slaughtered by exsanguination with unstunned animals. Not only this, but the hindquarters are not used and passed on into the normal food chain with no labelling to state it is Kosher. This means that there is little or no chance of exclusively selecting meat from animals slaughtered after being stunned.
My understanding - but this is a vague recollection - was that it is really a public health matter. If you are in a hot country without refrigeration then you need to avoid wormy meats such as pork or foods like shellfish that are likely to make you ill.
Is there evidence that these techniques are cruel? If there is, then we need to look at whether we allow them. Religions/superstitions/belief systems should not be used as justification for cruelty. I don't know the answers, but think it is valid to ask the question.
As a matter of interest is there any party staffers just spouting the party line, as Stuart claims?
My impression is that those on here who have party positions are all more intelligent and nuanced than that, and all deviate at times from official positions.
I do find the prospect of six more months of Scotnat posting a little depressing, little rays of sunshine that they are.
The only group that never criticise their own party are the Scot Nats/SNP.
UKIP and the Lib Dems are usually pretty forgiving of their own parties, Labour, and in particular Con, less so....
More lies from you , sweeping inaccurate horse manure as ever , and before you ask go and find your own links
Indeed, more generally the poll confirms the degree to which Labour support is potentially the weak link in the unionist camp; once the Don’t Knows are excluded no less than 34% of those who backed Labour in 2011 say they will vote Yes.
Somehow I doubt Malcolm will be denouncing Curtice as a Unionist stooge and lickspittle today.....
As I observed yesterday (and have many times in the past), it really is all down to Labour in Scotland. God help us.....
It is very noteworthy that Curtice has modified his positionI suspect he's modified his position because the data has changed....something that cannot be said of all, who hold the same view irrespective of the data......
Putin's actions in the Crimea have been contingency plans for some time. The whole sequence of occupation, referendum, incorporation within Russia and eviction of Ukrainian forces has followed very detailed and long thought out plans.
I think his next step will be to destabilise the East and South of the Ukraine politically through local Russian speakers resisting Kiev control; economically by restricting trade with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to 'approved' partners; and militarily by using incursions selectively to control civil unrest or threats to economic interests.
Both outcomes would suit Putin. An invasion which restored order would not result in a military response from the Western powers and would give him maximum power in any subsequent negotiations.
Even a stalemate would work the same way, but on a longer timescale. The threat of unilateral escalation would make it difficult for the West to make a major and meaningful intervention and also keep 'NATO' away from the western banks of the Dnieper.
I am not sure Putin wants to occupy the Ukraine or even to bring the whole country into Russia's sphere of influence. His goal is to keep the Ukraine's destiny within his power and to avoid further NATO encroachment. Asset stripping the South and East or splitting the country on Russian terms is the most likely outcome.
Putin will want to restrict the West to a demilitarised and deindustrialised Eastern Ukraine, with the costs of supporting its development on the US and the EU's books.
For all Obama's and the EU's sable rattling, I cannot see any other outcome. And the irony is that, as soon as we openly recognise this state of play, Putin will suddenly become the most reasonable of negotiators.
Russia should be encouraged to have a plebiscite in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, now that they have been convinced of the wisdom of these things.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Knowledgeable stuff from Avery. There is little I could disagree with. Whilst I have little problem with the Crimean people's wish to join Mother Russia, we must not forget the original land belonged to the Tatars. Russians were imported into the cRimea by successive Tsars and Communist dictators.
The Tatars have suffered hugely including forced deportation of an entire community. They need protection and that is where Western attention must be focussed now.
Comments
Couldn’t see a gender breakdown. Might be interesting.
That's right. Ultimately, it should be a decision for the Scottish people. Dare I say, as it should be for the people of the Crimea who hav e been tossed about like a political football by different dictators at different times without ever having a say themselves. The West's sudden conversion to the principles of "territorial integrity" is interesting as it is hypocritical. It is the same position as that of China.
Kosovo [ where we were correct to intervene ]and Iraq [ where we were utterly wrong to intervene ] were both interferences in the territorial integrity of a country. Thank God, we had the gumption not to get involved in Syria possibly abetting an ultimate Islamist takeover.
And, before anybody jumps at me, yes, the Labour party was just as [ right or wrong ] on this as it is today on the Crimea.
Unless there is a marked improvement in the polling of the Scottish Lib Dems they will lose West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine. I think it is likely to fall into the tories grasp rather than being won and I agree the tories are very weak on ground. It may not matter though if the Lib Dems fall apart.
Well done Mike on PB's first decennial - and long may it continue in good health.
And if Ukrainians need a state with borders, what about Kurdistan?
1. Denied Devomax, but not claimed credit quite so publicly and crowingly and pretended it was a defeat for the indy side.
2. Accepted Devomax, and then exerted leadership on the rest of the UK to to bring it about. Whether this was practical with the Tory backbenchers, for a start, is another matter; but he could have said "look here, this means we instantly win the referendum, so just shut up, OK?".
But anyway happy birthday to the site and I will be interested to see the newspaper headlines two years tomorrow!
Also; who is ISE...?
Yours,
Another "Optimistic Contentment".
Basically it means that the big guys shouldn't go round cutting chunks of the little guys. The West uses it to stick up for the little guys - China uses it to justify the occupation of Tibet.
Fundamentally, though, the real principle is that the big guys shouldn't beat up the little guys unless they pose a threat. However flawed the execution, I think Afghanistan stacks up on that criteria; Iraq clearly less so, although I am prepared to believe that Bush et al *believed* that it did.
(If Crimera was to hold a free & fair referendum - impossible in the current situation - and decide to move to Russia then fair play to them).
From a bookmaker's point of view I expect the combined expertise on here has cost us a few quid down the years.
It's been a pleasure to be involved, first as no more than a lurker, then contributing occasional and cautious comments, then being drawn in more and more to the wonderful community pbc is.
I'd also like to thank Mike for firstly asking me to write the articles I have over the years - of which I've done about 250 now, over five years - and also for the freedom he gives me in topic, analysis and content, even when I know my view runs directly opposite to his (as yesterday!). With the exception of the occasional edit for legal reasons, I can't think of any time when they've not run as written.
I'd love to stay for the day but other duties press. Good luck to all and Happy Birthday pbc!!
Sorry, just found a reference. Didn’t see last weeks Observer.
I think that Russia has gained the Crimea at the price of the EU border reaching the Dneiper, perhaps even the Don. To the Russians it may not look a triumph.
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world.
Are you arguing that Sharia law is Human Rights compliant?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7233040.stm
I have no idea on this, but would the SNP have been content to wait for a UK-wide Devomax settlement to have been agreed before holding a referendum? It's not something that could have been carved out of thin air, it would have taken time to sort out.
Of course, just because such discrimination is and - please God - will stay unlawful, doesn't mean that every last Peebie has to agree...
Some will associate Sharia with FGM. It has nothing to do with it.
Many Tories might even support Capital funding, the Sharia way. For example, the borrower does not pay interest but has to pay dividends out of profit. Therefore, all lenders are stakeholders , however, small.
Apparently we're supposed to get you something made from either tin or aluminium ...
(Oh, and on the Diplomacy game - many thanks to the players for making me welcome when I stepped in (it was me, not AndyJS :-) ) and thanks to all for an enjoyable game. I've also never come anywhere near a 7-way draw before!)
Thank you so much for this site - it's brilliant. I hope the next ten years are even better than the first ten!
All the best.
The origins of these practices in both the religions are exactly the same. It would not surprise me if early Christians followed the same rituals.
I think that the turn of events is not one that anyone wanted, Russian, EU, USA and least of all Ukraine.
New elections and a federal structure must be the best way forward.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26702188
Putin wanted the Crimea in Russia now that the Ukraine has gone Western for the same reasons as the West [ NATO here ]. The warm water ports of the Black Sea.
The enemy of mine enemy is not always my friend.
And of course the comment you highlight is wrong anyway since UK Human Rights Law has not all been democratically determined; a significant proportion of it has been imposed without reference to the British public at all.
David Mellor: pro EU. Very close to Spain.
It was spiteful, reeking of Labour tribalism, and her audience loved it.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/the-fight-over-progressive-politics-has-to-stay-civilised.23761187
And yes that applies to Jewish and Christian practices as much as Muslim if they run counter to the established law of the land. Exception for religious purposes should not be a factor in determining laws.
Always amazing how little rope a Kipper needs to hang himself with.
I'd also like to thank the editorial and moderation team for keeping the show on the road. I have too many favourite posters here to single out but, like many others, it's the long-standing, less emotional and less hyper-partisan ones I tend to make a beeline for.
I say this with no hint of hyperbole: politicalbetting.com is the best website on the internet. It has given me immense pleasure over the years and is my favourite site (by far) to read for news, politics and sharing general knowledge. I've learnt a huge amount here from a wide range of intelligent, insightful and engaging posters from all walks of life and all points of view.
If (just occassionally) there can be petty provactions and arguments amongst some posters who should know better, these are thankfully rare - or else easily ignored.
Pb.com: there is simply nothing else like it anywhere else. Nor will there ever be.
Happy Birthday!
I think the exsanguination requirement comes from the belief that the soul is in the blood, and that Kosher and Halal foods therefore do not contaminate the soul of the consumer. The Jehovahs Witnesses take a similar reason for objecting to blood transfusions.
Other rules are more obscure such as it not being Kosher to eat meat within an hour of dairy products. I flat shared with a Jewish medical student who followed Kosher practice as far as he could. His view was that there was no logic to the rules and did not need to be, the purpose was to follow Gods commands in the little things in preparation for following the commands in the bigger things.
I suspect that you are correct and that Shadsy has priced West Aberdeenshire wrongly. That CON price of 6/4 looks value to me. Even if it shortened to EVS it would probably still be value. The main worry is not so much the LDs holding on but rather the SNP nipping through the middle.
Not only a great place to sound off, but at times very educational.
More seriously, putting aside my militant atheism, the point is not so much that a law has or has not a religious basis, but that it is applied equally across the whole country. If we decide it is okay to bleed animals to death whilst they are still conscious then it should be legal for all people not just certain religious minorities. Alternatively if we decide something is against the law then again that should apply to all with no exemption for religious belief.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/03/europe-trial/
But those who say the whole country is clamouring for a referendum are wrong. Some, certainly, think it is the greatest question of our time. But even among the most hostile voters, only a third put Europe among the most crucial issues facing the country, and only a quarter think it important to them and their families. That is why Cameron’s “negotiate and decide” policy will please some voters but won’t win the election all by itself.
Of course, it was Mr Salmond and the SNP that insisted on a late, 2014, referendum, and the Unionists who suddenly wanted to bring it on and have it immediately (remember, there was all that stuff about it being unacceptably in Bannockburn septencentenary year so we had to have it in 2013, till it was pointed out that this was Flodden quincentenary (sp?) year). And of course there are other issues involved (e.g. the 2014 date means that being seen in bed with Tories becomes a serious issue for Labour with the UKGE of 2015 approaching).
But even so, there would seem to have been plenty of time to look and be statesmanlike, even after the Edinburgh Agreement of January 2013. I could very easily convince myself that that approach would have paid huge dividends in contrast to the one actually taken. It would have staved off indy for another decade or two at least.
I know there is a doctrine (under the conveniently unwritten constitution) that the decisions of one administration at Westminster don't bind the next, but if an all-party agreement could be reached then the implications of later breaching it would have been so serious that a de facto binding agreement could have been achieved, presumably.
The question of whether devomax (ie all except defence and external relations) could be accepted by EWNI is perhaps another matter, but if it meant saving the union for the foreseeable future with the minimum of grief ...?
I think Putin has made a strategic mistake in the context of the long arc of history.
It's a bit like pursuing a 35% strategy...
I am comparative neophyte compared to the 2004 pioneers - I only discovered the site (and indeed the political blogosphere) in mid-2007. It took me months to leave a comment (not under this username) and it was the kindness of the response by Peter the Punter which convinced me this was a place I should spend more time. When Mike was going away in December 2007, he invited guest articles, and I sent him a rubbish piece on the betting for the next Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.
The story of how I became more involved in PB is one of sheer serendipity. I used to eat Saturday brunch at a particular table at a particular cafe each weekend. One weekend shortly after the guest article, I was reading Mike's excellent book 'The Political Punter'. The chap at the table next to me said: "Do you know he has a really good website?", and I said "As a matter of fact, I've just had an article published on it about Archbishops". The man smiled, and said "You must be Morus? I'm 'Double Carpet' and I'm covering for Mike while he's on holiday". The rest, as they say, is history.
1/2
I spent a couple of years as a community moderator elsewhere, and I stand by the claim that there is no better community on the internet than PB.com. I won't name check anyone, as failure to mention will be bound to offend, but the range of intelligent, funny and kindhearted comment on here has been a source of joy for at least the last 7 years for me, even though I can't devote as much time to the site as I did previously. This is a true, flesh-and-blood community, never better demonstrated than when we lost our dear friend SBS. The people I met through the PB.com events - or even just through comment threads - have become my dear friends as well as political sparring partners.
The 2008 US election still dominates my memories of the site - from the Obama speech after Iowa, to the Hillary spike in New Hampshire, the Super Tuesday extravaganza, and the super delegate shenanigans. I got to cover the Obama nominating convention in Denver for a week (the Denver Diary was, I think, 22,000 words of unedited prose. Special), and then we had the Palin nomination, and the invasion of South Ossetia, and the continued Global Financial Crisis, then an awesome US election night with PBers north of King's X. Nick Palmer MP doing PhD-level maths on the counties of Indiana, and my insistence that Nebraska would split its ECVs (correct) and that Georgia might swing blue (very not correct).
But also, the Gordon Brown years. The Election That Never Was, the arrest of Damian Green, the David Davis resignation and by-election, the election of Jon Bercow as Speaker, the David Miliband non-resignation after the Local Elections in 2009, the changing of the date of the Glenrothes By-election because of an article on this website, the founding of coalition, Baroness Ashton taking Mandelson's expected job as EU Foreign Minister. How many of Morus' Saturday Slants came out of the King Lear-esque trundle of Labour's last years?
OGH was my first ever editor, and the first person to ever give me a platform to write for a real audience (and what an audience). I used to write on Friday nights, publish around 2-4 a.m. then snap awake at 8am, terrified of what the initial reaction to my piece would be. Living in fear of your audience, because they are insightful critics as well as subject-matter experts, is the only way to improve as a young writer, and if I got any better at all, it was because of the feedback I got below the line. Because of Mike, I got to know other bloggers and to learn the Westminster village. Because of Mike, I was invited to edit the Election Guide by Iain Dale. Because of Mike, I had the clips to spend the most remarkable year at Columbia Journalism School, which in turn secured me a job at the Guardian during law school. All of that came from Mike trusting me, and words cannot express how grateful I am to him for his trust, and mentorship and friendship.
Happy 10th birthday, PoliticalBetting.com, and congratulations Mike.
I think his next step will be to destabilise the East and South of the Ukraine politically through local Russian speakers resisting Kiev control; economically by restricting trade with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to 'approved' partners; and militarily by using incursions selectively to control civil unrest or threats to economic interests.
The Russian army will also remain massed on the Ukraine border with the implicit threat that any military intervention by NATO or its allies will result in a full invasion.
The net effect of these actions will be to make it difficult, expensive and unrewarding for the EU and US to incorporate Eastern Ukraine into their 'western' sphere of influence.
The situation in the Ukraine will either deteriorate into widespread civil unrest - a "civil war" - and 'justify' invasion by Russia, or, it will stagnate as a failed and ungovernable state.
Both outcomes would suit Putin. An invasion which restored order would not result in a military response from the Western powers and would give him maximum power in any subsequent negotiations.
Even a stalemate would work the same way, but on a longer timescale. The threat of unilateral escalation would make it difficult for the West to make a major and meaningful intervention and also keep 'NATO' away from the western banks of the Dnieper.
I am not sure Putin wants to occupy the Ukraine or even to bring the whole country into Russia's sphere of influence. His goal is to keep the Ukraine's destiny within his power and to avoid further NATO encroachment. Asset stripping the South and East or splitting the country on Russian terms is the most likely outcome.
Putin will want to restrict the West to a demilitarised and deindustrialised Eastern Ukraine, with the costs of supporting its development on the US and the EU's books.
For all Obama's and the EU's sable rattling, I cannot see any other outcome. And the irony is that, as soon as we openly recognise this state of play, Putin will suddenly become the most reasonable of negotiators.
That said, I would hope that the courts would have the courage to overturn a manifest injustice - for instance a perverse disinheritance - regardless of whether a will is written under Sharia or English law.
The reason why it is such a success is your last sentence, which applies to all of us!
It was only when Paul won his argument with James The Brother Of Jesus about the mission to the Gentiles (and then all the factors that facilitate the development of the religion throughout the Roman Empire) that divergence began.
BobaFett and friends have been here for many of those ten glorious years.
You would have a better objection regarding the fairness of the distribution. For example, male children get two shares to one for each female child. Then again, the UK law does not stop that either.
So congrats to Mike, Robert, the mods and the guest editors and contributers for making this a place I still want to visit five years on and a boo hiss for the few nasty little trolls who remain that try and wreck interesting (and occasionally heated) debates with views across the political spectrum.
We could also kill a lot of the myths about exactly how much of our trade depended on EU membership.
Independence is the only way to get rid of the dead hand of London and the blood sucking unionists ( Scottish , English , Welsh , etc ensconced there).
Labour are the worst , at least the Tories are happy to say they are nasty.
Off topic, something I only realised today is that there are going to be TWO EU debates between Clegg vs Farage: one on LBC on 26 March, hosted by Nick Ferrari, and one on BBC Two on 2 April, hosted by David Dimbleby.
That's a lot of exposure to the extreme positions. It's bound to affect the terms by which a chunk of voters vote. And in that binary context voting Labour or Conservative is sitting on the fence ie something that people don't like doing. It's certainly a good move by both smaller parties.
It also opens up the possibility that the GE debates won't necessarily be limited to just three debates on the main TV channels like last time. For instance, say Farage challenged Clegg to debate in the run up the general election? Clegg couldn't say no without looking shifty, given that Farage accepted his offer of an EU debate. And there'd be plenty of media outlets willing to broadcast it.
This is what those exhorters of Islam want - like a fifth column in the body of the country.
If this is seen as an anti islamist stance - well it is, so there.
How does that work @PBModerator ?
This is another new poll showing move to YES. It is very noteworthy that Curtice has modified his position, he must see which way the wind is blowingh as he sees NO heading for the toilet. Herald has moved considerably recently and only the Daily Retard and the toilet paper Scotsman are trying to pretend that NO is doing well.
Come May when we see YES on parity or ahead it will be joyful to behold the panic.
I'm in the 'Better Apart' camp; I can see the benefits of being separated. Those who might be left in rUK should have been given a say in Scottish Independence too.
Surprise surprise we have much in common, apart from the last bit
The Tatars have suffered hugely including forced deportation of an entire community. They need protection and that is where Western attention must be focussed now.