Exactly what needs to be said. He's apparently standing as a Lib Dem candidate in the next election. I like him on this issue so much he'd be the one Lib Dem I might actually vote for.
The best way to get a deal is if the other side believe that you may leave. If they believe that Cameron will not leave over anything then his negotiating position is weakened. But, the evidence indicates otherwise. The review of EU competencies, have to date, been of list of minor matters which we have to take is a reading of the intention of Cameron to demand very little. Judge a man by his actions.
The other day Charles you stated the view that Cameron would avoid at all costs splitting his party. The EU competencies indicates that he does not recognise where he will end up in the medium/long term as a result of the actions that he is presiding over. A major strategic gap - and something that last minute swotting does not overcome. But then he could have avoided the EC rebellions in his back bencher if he had made the 2017 pledge earlier. Another strategic blunder.
The alternative explanation is that he really believed that Merkel would stand by him (why enter a losing fight otherwise). Either way he will learn whether Merkel will back him when push goes to shove.
I'm not surprised the competency review is meaningless: why tip your hand at this stars of the discussion?
On bringing his party with him, he will clearly have considered it, and know where people stand on key issues. But it doesn't really become a consideration until you know the shape of the final deal and then make a call.
I wonder if it was a test run. I recall the diplomat I had lunch with a few weeks ago saying that the veto was unplanned
...
Could it be that Cameron is fighting the Juncker case the test Merkel's reliability ( and susceptibility to the threat of the UK leaving the EU if you believe the German press)?
Looking at both examples and applying Occam's Razor I think it's more plausible that Cameron has no idea WTF he's doing...
How about just applying common sense, based on what has been said - Cameron doesn't want a self proclaimed arch federalist in the top job.
Aside from the issue of how the arch federalist is different from the alternatives (a round federalist or a square federalist?), that would explain the opposition, but not the tactics: A threat of withdrawal, and creating a lot of pan-European drama, both have worked to strengthen both Juncker's position and the precedent that Juncker getting the job would set.
While I appreciate your point, the problem with your view is that it basically means we shouldn't ever fight for any view we believe in unless Germany agrees. That's not European co-operation. That's rule by Germany.
No, the whole idea of everything based on an alliance with Germany, who are supposed to be going to be mysteriously helpful to the UK in ways that never seem to work out in practice, is a fantasy of people on the right who support Cameron's hypothetical renegotiation and don't seem to have worked out that the "Queen Europe" twitter account is in fact a joke and she's only one of 28.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the UK thought Juncker was going to be really bad, it would have been good strategy to oppose, find another plausible candidate, and try to get other countries to agree. If you win you win, and if you lose you get at least some kind of consolation prize. The bad strategy was connecting it with a threat to leave the EU over it and creating a lot of additional drama, which just polarized opinion and made it much harder for other leaders, who may well have secretly wanted to avoid selecting Juncker too, to do what you want.
Relatedly, at the time of the flounce, it was a good strategy to try to get things that you wanted even if you were in a majority. It was a bad strategy to threaten to veto a deal and walk out, since it just resulted in the rest of the parties going ahead and making their own deal, without any concessions to the UK.
It's a good strategy to use your leverage, but it's a bad strategy to break your lever.
Off topic. Is anyone else becoming concerned about Tony Blair's mental state? He seems to have moved beyond merely delusional to some kind of weird Napoleon complex.
He is like someone who has sold a share that has risen in price, and relentlessly keeps selling to average out rather than take a hit.
He was wrong, badly wrong. He should have some humility, shut his mouth and go away to retire somewhere sunny
I wonder if it was a test run. I recall the diplomat I had lunch with a few weeks ago saying that the veto was unplanned...
Could it be that Cameron is fighting the Juncker case the test Merkel's reliability ( and susceptibility to the threat of the UK leaving the EU if you believe the German press)?
Applying Occam's Razor I think it's more plausible that Cameron has no idea WTF he's doing...
If somebody else had won the election - say Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the socialist Kinnock in-law who wants Denmark to abandon its opt-outs and join the Euro - Juncker would have been exactly the kind of right-wing deal-maker the UK would have been pushing for as their "compromise candidate".
Well yes, but surely you go for the best outcome given the circumstances. If the Socialists had won the election, Juncker would have been a win. The centre-right won the elction, so you might be able to do even better.
Personally I would be happier seeing someone with experience of running a major country, say somewhere the size of Hampshire. And how many Presidents does Europe actually need? I think Rompuy stays, he is President of something slightly different.
The best way to get a deal is if the other side believe that you may leave.
That's only half the problem - the other half is that they have to want you to stay...
Well if you are the customer and they are the supplier in terms of cash flows, then they have a greater need for you to stay, than you have to stay.
Are you talking about trade or the net contribution? For the former you presumably make a deal, and for the latter the contribution is only about 10 Euros a head or something - it's nice to have, but not worth being eternally dicked around over.
I continue to worry that the polls do not reflect what is happening on the ground. I disagree with Fitalass and others who think NO will win. The "constituency" which will determine the result remains the huge mass of WWC Scots occupying the large post war housing estates on the fringes of the major cities and in the new towns across Central Scotland. These were the people Salmond won over in 2011 to win his majority at Holyrood.
These are the Daily Record/Sun in Scotland readers who buy the paper to check the football and latest on reality shows/celebrity gossip, not engage in deep and meaningful political debate. They voted Labour because their father did/does. They liked Gordon Brown and John Smith. They don't understand Ed Miliband. They are also the people the pollsters are not reaching.
They don't care what Obama, the Pope or anyone else says. Few of them sit down to watch 30 minute news programmes. They probably cant name their Labour MP or SNP MSP. Most probably have no idea which constituency they live in. They would be more likely to change their vote if Ally McCoist or Neil Lennon come out with strong statements for or against.
IF the YESNP can get these people out to vote in large numbers, YES will win. Its that simple. That is why they are the people YES is targeting really hard.
Pakistan and its problems are not monolithic and are not all related to Islamism. Corruption, ethnic and economic factors and a lack of leadership all play out differently in each province. I found the people of Sindh to be hugely sympathetic to our message. Conversely, the people of Mirpur, in "free" Kashmir, from where more than 90% of British Pakistanis come, and where sterling is a currency of choice, were hostile to the west.
In my opinion Cameron is using the Juncker debate exactly as he should, that is by highlighting the need for a different direction in the EU, some fairly substantial reform and the need for leadership focussed on that. It has allowed him to continue working on his Nordic alliance, Germany and Holland with a view to trying to find a consensus on a way forward.
This will be very important for him in 2016/17 if he wins the next election. It may well be that a compromise will be reached by which Juncker is appointed but committed to such an agenda. If so this would in fact be an important victory for Cameron even if it would be portrayed as a defeat.
There is a clear reluctance on the part of some important figures in the EU, notably the French, to have any constitutional discussions in the timescale that Cameron wants. I suspect this is driven by Hollande's belief that getting a yes to any change in France would be extremely problematic for him. Using this appointment of what will in fact prove to be a functionary is therefore quite smart politics by Cameron.
In my opinion Cameron is using the Juncker debate exactly as he should, that is by highlighting the need for a different direction in the EU, some fairly substantial reform and the need for leadership focussed on that. It has allowed him to continue working on his Nordic alliance, Germany and Holland with a view to trying to find a consensus on a way forward.
There was only one Nordic government on Cameron's side in this one, and they'll very probably be out of office this September.
This will be very important for him in 2016/17 if he wins the next election. It may well be that a compromise will be reached by which Juncker is appointed but committed to such an agenda. If so this would in fact be an important victory for Cameron even if it would be portrayed as a defeat.
No, the whole idea of everything based on an alliance with Germany, who are supposed to be going to be mysteriously helpful to the UK in ways that never seem to work out in practice, is a fantasy of people on the right who support Cameron's hypothetical renegotiation and don't seem to have worked out that the "Queen Europe" twitter account is in fact a joke and she's only one of 28.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the UK thought Juncker was going to be really bad, it would have been good strategy to oppose, find another plausible candidate, and try to get other countries to agree. If you win you win, and if you lose you get at least some kind of consolation prize. The bad strategy was connecting it with a threat to leave the EU over it and creating a lot of additional drama, which just polarized opinion and made it much harder for other leaders, who may well have secretly wanted to avoid selecting Juncker too, to do what you want.
Relatedly, at the time of the flounce, it was a good strategy to try to get things that you wanted even if you were in a majority. It was a bad strategy to threaten to veto a deal and walk out, since it just resulted in the rest of the parties going ahead and making their own deal, without any concessions to the UK.
It's a good strategy to use your leverage, but it's a bad strategy to break your lever.
When was the last time the rest of the EU overrode Germany's position on a major policy? When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?
This Quilliam guy is brilliant. He is challenging a Muslim cleric who was trying to weasel-word on extremism. IT went something like this:
Cleric: "It's very wrong to condemn these Muslim schools for extremism. Jews believe the same things as Muslims and would never be criticised in thsi way." Quilliam guy: "I will criticise anyone that believes in stoning, whether they are Muslim, Jewish or anything else. Do you believe in stoning?" Cleric: "We believe in supporting the existing laws of land, and stoning is not legal, so I wouldn't suport it." Quilliam guy: "There's a lot of complexity around Muslim beliefs in an Islamic state that the audience might not be aware of. Would you support stoning under the context of an Islamic state?" Cleric: "I think another part of this issue that needs to be addressed..." Quilliam guy: "Please answer the question. Do you support stoning under the context of an Islamic state?" Cleric: "I think other religions have very..." Quilliam guy: "Yes or no, answer the question" Cleric: "I can't give a firm yes or no"
Bam. The ugliness of conservative Islam is portrayed very clearly for everyone. Moderate people of all faiths will be turned away from it, and conservative Muslims will realise that this issue is a liability for them. They will need to react by 'reinterpreting' their views on this, come up with some excuse why it won't be needed ever again, etc. This is what Christianity did. This is what Judaism did. This is what Mormonism did. We need to give them hell over these sort of views until they have to buckle on it. We've been afraid to do it for too long, but the tide is turning.
That would require a Islamic version of the reformation. I am not sure that is possible. If one regards one's holy book as the literal word of one's God in terms not only of one's theology but as an instruction manual on how to live from day to day and what one's relations should be to non-believers it is a very big ask to say well maybe we have been reading it wrong all these years. In fact in many ways its seems that Islam is moving in the other direction and to a more fundamentalist view of the book's contents.
If such a reformation does come about it won't be quick (the Christian one took centuries to work through) and it won't happen as a result of outside pressure and it will never happen whilst the House of Saud has billions to spend promoting Wahhabism.
Didn't Lenin once say that the capitalists will sell the rope that will be used to hang them to the communists? So with the Wahhabi creed. All the time we are dependant on Saudi oil, and trying to flog them arms, then they will continue to fund the education programmes, and hence the terrorist spin-offs, that are antithetical to our national interest.
When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?
Hard to say because the Council of Ministers isn't very transparent - the member states seem to like to game out who could win under QMV, then the losers join the winning side and produce unanimity.
Can you answer that question substituting - say - Italy?
Trever Philipps has done new research finding a third of white British voters in London went UKIP, a third went Tory, and just a sixth went Labour. So it's nothing to do with Londoners differing from the rest of the UK. It's just demographics. Labour are incapable of winning over white British people - their long term strategy depends on importing more ethnic minorities.
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?
Hard to say because the Council of Ministers isn't very transparent - the member states seem to like to game out who could win under QMV, then the losers join the winning side and produce unanimity.
Can you answer that question substituting - say - Italy?
No, I can't. Thats my point. Countries like Italy and the UK have very little influence. The fact that the system is hugely intransparent and unaccountable is not an argument in the EU's favour.
That would require a Islamic version of the reformation. I am not sure that is possible. If one regards one's holy book as the literal word of one's God in terms not only of one's theology but as an instruction manual on how to live from day to day and what one's relations should be to non-believers it is a very big ask to say well maybe we have been reading it wrong all these years. In fact in many ways its seems that Islam is moving in the other direction and to a more fundamentalist view of the book's contents.
If such a reformation does come about it won't be quick (the Christian one took centuries to work through) and it won't happen as a result of outside pressure and it will never happen whilst the House of Saud has billions to spend promoting Wahhabism.
Didn't Lenin once say that the capitalists will sell the rope that will be used to hang them to the communists? So with the Wahhabi creed. All the time we are dependant on Saudi oil, and trying to flog them arms, then they will continue to fund the education programmes, and hence the terrorist spin-offs, that are antithetical to our national interest.
There's already been an Islamic Reformation, and it followed a similar path to the Christian one - lots of new groups springing up with radical and intolerant beliefs of their own. The Puritans were a product of the Reformation remember, and there was a huge rise in piety (similar to what we see in Islam today). What is needed is not a Reformation, but an Enlightenment. Quilliam are hopefully an early seed of that, but what we need on the progressive side of the debate are not political think tanks but mosques.
No, the whole idea of everything based on an alliance with Germany, who are supposed to be going to be mysteriously helpful to the UK in ways that never seem to work out in practice, is a fantasy of people on the right who support Cameron's hypothetical renegotiation and don't seem to have worked out that the "Queen Europe" twitter account is in fact a joke and she's only one of 28.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the UK thought Juncker was going to be really bad, it would have been good strategy to oppose, find another plausible candidate, and try to get other countries to agree. If you win you win, and if you lose you get at least some kind of consolation prize. The bad strategy was connecting it with a threat to leave the EU over it and creating a lot of additional drama, which just polarized opinion and made it much harder for other leaders, who may well have secretly wanted to avoid selecting Juncker too, to do what you want.
Relatedly, at the time of the flounce, it was a good strategy to try to get things that you wanted even if you were in a majority. It was a bad strategy to threaten to veto a deal and walk out, since it just resulted in the rest of the parties going ahead and making their own deal, without any concessions to the UK.
It's a good strategy to use your leverage, but it's a bad strategy to break your lever.
When was the last time the rest of the EU overrode Germany's position on a major policy? When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?
Germany is in the intriguing position of being both the single most important voter and also the swing voter. So basicallly they can play the ends against each other.
The problem is that if the UK leaves, then there is no realistic counterbalance to France - and the Nordic Alliance without the UK can't outweight the South. So Germany gets repeatedly outvoted.
That might be fine for the SDP, but it's less good for the CDU.
How about just applying common sense, based on what has been said - Cameron doesn't want a self proclaimed arch federalist in the top job.
Leaving aside the rhetorical flourishes (the first three words of "self proclaimed arch federalist" are unnecessary padding that beg the question), if that is the intent, are his actions the best way to go about it? Given that a Juncker or Schultz candidacy were the most probable outcome given the predicted outcome of the election and the strength of EPP/PES, was waiting until after the election the best time to register his objections to either? I think not
Looking at both examples and applying Occam's Razor I think it's more plausible that Cameron has no idea WTF he's doing...
This may actually be true. His 2012 "flounce bounce" was based on him not knowing that the Treaty of Nice bought in enhanced coooperation, so his veto wasn't actually a veto, so all that he achieved was to make a fool of himself.
Similarly, his present objection to Juncker may be based on him not knowing that the Treaty of Lisbon brought in QMV for the Commission President election, not unanimity,[1] so again all he will achieve is that he'll make a fool of himself again
[1]: To be fair, I got caught out as well. But I'm not PM.
The EU needs a Leader than is open to Reform and comes from outside the EU bureaucracy - a member of that present system who wants more of the same is the last thing that would be good for the EU
What the EU needs and what it gets are two different things. What it will get is someone who can win a qualified majority of votes in an election by the 28 heads of government. Cameron's efforts should be directed to getting that qualified majority to vote for his preferred candidate. Given that a) he's started way too late, b) he doesn't have a preferred candidate and c) he should have worked this out months ago, I may be forgiven for thinking he is not competent in European matters.
Out of interest how is an arch-federalist different from a normal federalist?
They speak directly to the audience (breaking the fourth wall), purse their lips frequently, murmur "you may think that, Mattie: I couldn't possibly comment", and make "pass the salt" sound like a death threat. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FauxAffablyEvil .
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
Doubt it'll happen, though.
Mr. Dancer, The idea that is was true in its time and so could be re-interpreted falls at the first fence.
Consider the killing of animals for food. The ritual slaughter of an animal as laid down in their holy book may well have been the most humane (if you will forgive the term) at the time. A force then for good. Move the time on by 1400 years and new knowledge, new methods provide more "humane" methods of slaughter. However, if one is locked into idea that the contents of a book as being the literal word of God, then the passage of time and knowledge, is irrelevant.
Not sure it means much, but it's vaguely interesting in the way the ICM Wisdom Index is.
The very low DK/won't say response in Scotland is also notable.
Thanks - that is an interesting observation. I'd suspect that even those people whose family and friends are mainly for yes would be inclined to assume that No is winning, because of the known heterogeneity of the electorate, combined with the No Campaign's dominance of the Scottish media and its persistent claim it is winning, whatever the truth might be (and we don't know that till the wee sma oors of 19 September).
Christianity suffers the same problem as Islam, both books were put into written form well after the deaths of the main actors. Telling this to a fundamentalist of either religion, will get the same disbelieving stares.
When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?
Hard to say because the Council of Ministers isn't very transparent - the member states seem to like to game out who could win under QMV, then the losers join the winning side and produce unanimity.
Can you answer that question substituting - say - Italy?
No, I can't. Thats my point. Countries like Italy and the UK have very little influence. The fact that the system is hugely intransparent and unaccountable is not an argument in the EU's favour.
I mean the other way around, can you give me an example of the UK getting what it wants without Italy, which is what you asked me for for Germany to prove the Merkel Runs Everything theory.
Council of Ministers stitch-ups lack of transparency argues for: a) Normal democracy (EU parliament picks com pres etc) b) BOO c) Trust your national government, they know best!
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
Doubt it'll happen, though.
Mr. Dancer, The idea that is was true in its time and so could be re-interpreted falls at the first fence.
Consider the killing of animals for food. The ritual slaughter of an animal as laid down in their holy book may well have been the most humane (if you will forgive the term) at the time. A force then for good. Move the time on by 1400 years and new knowledge, new methods provide more "humane" methods of slaughter. However, if one is locked into idea that the contents of a book as being the literal word of God, then the passage of time and knowledge, is irrelevant.
But that has already been superseded. As I understand it, the vast majority of halal meat in the UK is electrically pre-stunned, as most imams agree that non-fatal stunning does not affect the Koranic injunction that the animal should have its throat cut and bled out while still alive. They do object to captive bolt stunning, which can kill the animal immediately. And I am fairly sure that the original reason was not animal welfare, but food hygiene - to make sure the meat was completely bled out.
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
Doubt it'll happen, though.
Mr. Dancer, The idea that is was true in its time and so could be re-interpreted falls at the first fence.
Consider the killing of animals for food. The ritual slaughter of an animal as laid down in their holy book may well have been the most humane (if you will forgive the term) at the time. A force then for good. Move the time on by 1400 years and new knowledge, new methods provide more "humane" methods of slaughter. However, if one is locked into idea that the contents of a book as being the literal word of God, then the passage of time and knowledge, is irrelevant.
I am no scholar of Islam, but I think the biggest issue is the Christian Bible is a combination of Jewish law, histories, prophecies, personal recollections (gospels) and letters. All inspired by the word of God. IIRC, according to believers, the Qu'ram was dictated by Gabriel to Mohammed, meaning that it is *literally* the word of God & therefore cannot be interpreted. The best parallel would be to look at the Mormons to see how they have managed to work with the plates of gold that John Smith found buried in New England
I continue to worry that the polls do not reflect what is happening on the ground. I disagree with Fitalass and others who think NO will win. The "constituency" which will determine the result remains the huge mass of WWC Scots occupying the large post war housing estates on the fringes of the major cities and in the new towns across Central Scotland. These were the people Salmond won over in 2011 to win his majority at Holyrood.
These are the Daily Record/Sun in Scotland readers who buy the paper to check the football and latest on reality shows/celebrity gossip, not engage in deep and meaningful political debate. They voted Labour because their father did/does. They liked Gordon Brown and John Smith. They don't understand Ed Miliband. They are also the people the pollsters are not reaching.
They don't care what Obama, the Pope or anyone else says. Few of them sit down to watch 30 minute news programmes. They probably cant name their Labour MP or SNP MSP. Most probably have no idea which constituency they live in. They would be more likely to change their vote if Ally McCoist or Neil Lennon come out with strong statements for or against.
IF the YESNP can get these people out to vote in large numbers, YES will win. Its that simple. That is why they are the people YES is targeting really hard.
A very interesting post. But using the rather derogatory YesSNP expression perhaps misses a point in favour of your own argument, which is that the Radical Independence Campaign, Greens, etc., will also be targeting the same demographic area. The resulting increase in voter registration is particularly interesting to the degree that that renders invalid current assumptions of opinion pollsters. Note also the drop in pro-Labour VI for Holyrood and especially Westminster in recent opinion polls.
Also, I wouldn't be so sure about the footie chappies. You will know Mr Lennon has left Celtic, and Mr McCoist is already publicly pro-indy, so no change there
When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?
Hard to say because the Council of Ministers isn't very transparent - the member states seem to like to game out who could win under QMV, then the losers join the winning side and produce unanimity.
Can you answer that question substituting - say - Italy?
No, I can't. Thats my point. Countries like Italy and the UK have very little influence. The fact that the system is hugely intransparent and unaccountable is not an argument in the EU's favour.
I mean the other way around, can you give me an example of the UK getting what it wants without Italy, which is what you asked me for for Germany to prove the Merkel Runs Everything theory.
Council of Ministers stitch-ups lack of transparency argues for: a) Normal democracy (EU parliament picks com pres etc) b) BOO c) Trust your national government, they know best!
Are there perhaps some international trade issues, where Italy can be protectionist at times?
In terms of option a) can you give me an example of where the UK has got its way in the European parliament, without the backing of the German bloc?
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
Doubt it'll happen, though.
Mr. Dancer, The idea that is was true in its time and so could be re-interpreted falls at the first fence.
Consider the killing of animals for food. The ritual slaughter of an animal as laid down in their holy book may well have been the most humane (if you will forgive the term) at the time. A force then for good. Move the time on by 1400 years and new knowledge, new methods provide more "humane" methods of slaughter. However, if one is locked into idea that the contents of a book as being the literal word of God, then the passage of time and knowledge, is irrelevant.
I am no scholar of Islam, but I think the biggest issue is the Christian Bible is a combination of Jewish law, histories, prophecies, personal recollections (gospels) and letters. All inspired by the word of God. IIRC, according to believers, the Qu'ram was dictated by Gabriel to Mohammed, meaning that it is *literally* the word of God & therefore cannot be interpreted. The best parallel would be to look at the Mormons to see how they have managed to work with the plates of gold that John Smith found buried in New England
Traditionally, Christians believed that all the writings in the Bible were the ones that were so inspired by the Holy Spirit to such an extent it is the precise word of God. The idea that parts of it are subject to human error is very much a post-Enlightenment thing.
And Mormons have ditched politically unsustainable beliefs like polygamy and a ban on blacks taking the priesthood over the years.
Christianity suffers the same problem as Islam, both books were put into written form well after the deaths of the main actors. Telling this to a fundamentalist of either religion, will get the same disbelieving stares.
That's wrong.
The Gospels were most likely written 30+ years after Jesus's death (although some suggestions that Mark was earlier, perhaps late 40s AD). The Letters and the Acts were pretty much contemporaneous (although the Bible itself was codified later). I don't think it is fair to criticise oral histories converted into texts for being written after the time, but even so they are superceded by the New Testament
Mr. Charles, there were tons of gospels (I think Thomas' included dragons) that the Church whittled down a few centuries later when they were deciding on this, that and the other (fun fact: St Nicholas [better known as Santa Claus] punched a bishop [Papius, I think] in the face for suggesting Jesus wasn't the son of God).
@Charles Once again, I ask the question, why an all knowing God did not provide a scribe (or scribes) to create a contemporaneous account of both their teachings. Either this was an oversight, intentional, or because the message was never meant to be written down, leaving the individual to search for the true meaning. Specifically, the rending of the veil of the temple, suggests direct communication with God, something that I believe is also part of Islam.
Christianity suffers the same problem as Islam, both books were put into written form well after the deaths of the main actors. Telling this to a fundamentalist of either religion, will get the same disbelieving stares.
You'll get a disbelieving stare from me too cos that's just wrong. No on doubts the koran was written down very shortly after the death of the Prophet. On Christianity see Charles infra.
Christianity suffers the same problem as Islam, both books were put into written form well after the deaths of the main actors. Telling this to a fundamentalist of either religion, will get the same disbelieving stares.
The Epistles of St. Paul were actually written in the 50's AD, not long after Jesus' death.
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
Doubt it'll happen, though.
Mr. Dancer, The idea that is was true in its time and so could be re-interpreted falls at the first fence.
Consider the killing of animals for food. The ritual slaughter of an animal as laid down in their holy book may well have been the most humane (if you will forgive the term) at the time. A force then for good. Move the time on by 1400 years and new knowledge, new methods provide more "humane" methods of slaughter. However, if one is locked into idea that the contents of a book as being the literal word of God, then the passage of time and knowledge, is irrelevant.
I am no scholar of Islam, but I think the biggest issue is the Christian Bible is a combination of Jewish law, histories, prophecies, personal recollections (gospels) and letters. All inspired by the word of God. IIRC, according to believers, the Qu'ram was dictated by Gabriel to Mohammed, meaning that it is *literally* the word of God & therefore cannot be interpreted. The best parallel would be to look at the Mormons to see how they have managed to work with the plates of gold that John Smith found buried in New England
Traditionally, Christians believed that all the writings in the Bible were the ones that were so inspired by the Holy Spirit to such an extent it is the precise word of God. The idea that parts of it are subject to human error is very much a post-Enlightenment thing.
And Mormons have ditched politically unsustainable beliefs like polygamy and a ban on blacks taking the priesthood over the years.
Something being subject to interpretation is not the same as it being subject to 'human error'.
To attempt to lump Christianity in with Islam as something that in its unadulterated form is not conducive to civil society is a gross distortion of the facts. We have examples of Christian 'extremists' all around us. Exclusive Brethren, Strict baptists, Nuns, Trappist Monks etc. Not the most interesting of people perhaps, but nothing that requires taming by some sort of secularist hectoring.
@Charles Once again, I ask the question, why an all knowing God did not provide a scribe (or scribes) to create a contemporaneous account of both their teachings. Either this was an oversight, intentional, or because the message was never meant to be written down, leaving the individual to search for the true meaning. Specifically, the rending of the veil of the temple, suggests direct communication with God, something that I believe is also part of Islam.
Because an "instruction manual", for want of a better term, would undermine the purpose of free will.
The rending of the veil does imply that a Priesthood is not needed to intermediate between man and his God. But that doesn't undermine the value that can be derived from close study of other's experiences and teachings.
Not sure it means much, but it's vaguely interesting in the way the ICM Wisdom Index is.
The very low DK/won't say response in Scotland is also notable.
Thanks - that is an interesting observation. I'd suspect that even those people whose family and friends are mainly for yes would be inclined to assume that No is winning, because of the known heterogeneity of the electorate, combined with the No Campaign's dominance of the Scottish media and its persistent claim it is winning, whatever the truth might be (and we don't know that till the wee sma oors of 19 September).
I have the exact opposite view to Carnyx. If it was not for the MSM constantly trying to keep interest in the referendum alive the subject would be dead and buried.
Last week I went on a cycling trip with a group of 30 from a Hamilton gym to Skye. An articulate group of mostly middle class Scots. So did we discuss the referendum once on our trip. No. We spent an hour discussing the chance of England beating Italy but on the referendum nothing.
The vast majority of Scots who are going to vote have made up their mind and are keeping quiet now. There is no positive debate left, only name calling and general muck raking. This environment is not good for the Yes campaign as the SNP don't have the numbers to win on their own. They need to convince a large group of Labour voters to join with them.
So far Labour has stayed united and fought a good campaign. This week was typical with the main story being J K Rowling, a big Scot Labour supporter. She won votes in 2 ways. One by giving money and support to the No campaign and two by being attacked by the CyberNats.
I suggest looking at by-election results along with opinion polls to get some feeling of the mood. The last one fought was in South Lanarkshire and was remarkable in that the main shift in votes was from SNP to Tory. Labour still won the by-election and the shift was not that big maybe 4 to 5% of the votes case but it comes alongside a much better performance in the euros by the Tories as well. There were a group of Tories who switched to the SNP to get rid of Labour and some of these voters are returning as a result of the independence battle.
Over the last 2 years the SNP has being going slowly backwards in real elections as it has lost some of its protest and tactical votes. It is no longer cool to support the SNP. In summary if the Scots in general don't think there will be a Yes vote then I would listen to them.
Trever Philipps has done new research finding a third of white British voters in London went UKIP, a third went Tory, and just a sixth went Labour. So it's nothing to do with Londoners differing from the rest of the UK. It's just demographics. Labour are incapable of winning over white British people - their long term strategy depends on importing more ethnic minorities.
Fascinating. Do you have a link? It shoots down the argument that people in districts of high immigration are happy about it. UKIP did after all, top the poll in Havering and Bexley.
I wonder if you'll see the same voting patterns emerge in the UK that exist in the Deep South of the US.
Mark is considered the earliest Gospel but St Paul's epistles and Acts are the earliest surviving Christian writings. John is probably later than the three synoptic Gospels.
Mark is considered the earliest Gospel but St Paul's epistles and Acts are the earliest surviving Christian writings. John is probably later than the three synoptic Gospels.
I have the exact opposite view to Carnyx. If it was not for the MSM constantly trying to keep interest in the referendum alive the subject would be dead and buried.
Last week I went on a cycling trip with a group of 30 from a Hamilton gym to Skye. An articulate group of mostly middle class Scots. So did we discuss the referendum once on our trip. No. We spent an hour discussing the chance of England beating Italy but on the referendum nothing.
The vast majority of Scots who are going to vote have made up their mind and are keeping quiet now. There is no positive debate left, only name calling and general muck raking. This environment is not good for the Yes campaign as the SNP don't have the numbers to win on their own. They need to convince a large group of Labour voters to join with them.
So far Labour has stayed united and fought a good campaign. This week was typical with the main story being J K Rowling, a big Scot Labour supporter. She won votes in 2 ways. One by giving money and support to the No campaign and two by being attacked by the CyberNats.
I suggest looking at by-election results along with opinion polls to get some feeling of the mood. The last one fought was in South Lanarkshire and was remarkable in that the main shift in votes was from SNP to Tory. Labour still won the by-election and the shift was not that big maybe 4 to 5% of the votes case but it comes alongside a much better performance in the euros by the Tories as well. There were a group of Tories who switched to the SNP to get rid of Labour and some of these voters are returning as a result of the independence battle.
Over the last 2 years the SNP has being going slowly backwards in real elections as it has lost some of its protest and tactical votes. It is no longer cool to support the SNP. In summary if the Scots in general don't think there will be a Yes vote then I would listen to them.
Your anecdote has convinced me it's all over. Your 'Scots in general don't think there will be a Yes vote' point is based on a weighted sub sample of 172, almost as convincing as your anecdote.
Depending on sources, "Mark" is indeed the earliest, and was originally 16 chapters, that were later expanded by appending extra verses that were not in the original, it missed out large portions of the "mysteries" such as the virgin birth and the resurrection.
OK, too much Christianity on here, so time for some news from the Dark Side. It being Fathers' day my son sent me a link, which I would like to share because it made me laugh:
Trever Philipps has done new research finding a third of white British voters in London went UKIP, a third went Tory, and just a sixth went Labour. So it's nothing to do with Londoners differing from the rest of the UK. It's just demographics. Labour are incapable of winning over white British people - their long term strategy depends on importing more ethnic minorities.
Fascinating. Do you have a link? It shoots down the argument that people in districts of high immigration are happy about it. UKIP did after all, top the poll in Havering and Bexley.
I wonder if you'll see the same voting patterns emerge in the UK that exist in the Deep South of the US.
Ed West has often argued that one consequence of mass immigration would be that UK politics would become increasingly sectarian.
Trever Philipps has done new research finding a third of white British voters in London went UKIP, a third went Tory, and just a sixth went Labour. So it's nothing to do with Londoners differing from the rest of the UK. It's just demographics. Labour are incapable of winning over white British people - their long term strategy depends on importing more ethnic minorities.
Topic of the Day. Phil Neville on BBC MOTD last night. Was he auditioning for Jamaica Inn?
At such times of crap sporting punditry appointments, we remember the immortal words of Half Man, Half Biscuit:
"Well I’d like to meet Stephenson the engineer And I’d like to meet Faraday and buy him a beer And I’d love to meet the bloke who had the bright idea of Bob Wilson – anchorman"
One point that stuck with me, was that the early Christians did not expect to live long. They thought the end of the world was just over the horizon.
Christian, Marxist, and, to some extent, National Socialist eschatologies were all remarkably similar. Joachim of Fiore's followers in the thirteenth-century believed that the Age of the Son was about to superseded by the Age of the Spirit, which would last for a thousand years, in which the institutional church would disappear, with the godly and virtuous ruling instead. The Marxists claimed it to be inevitable that capitalism would be overthrown by advanced communism, a classless society of complete abundance in which the state would wither away. The humanity that had been lost with the fall of primitive communism would be recovered. The Nazis believed the Third Reich would last for a thousand years, the virtuous nation having been restored...
See N. Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium, (London, 1957).
Topic of the Day. Phil Neville on BBC MOTD last night. Was he auditioning for Jamaica Inn?
At such times of crap sporting punditry appointments, we remember the immortal words of Half Man, Half Biscuit:
"Well I’d like to meet Stephenson the engineer And I’d like to meet Faraday and buy him a beer And I’d love to meet the bloke who had the bright idea of Bob Wilson – anchorman"
Couldn't the BBC put aside a tiny, tiny fraction of its mega-million budget provided to overpay its so-called football experts in order to explain to Phil Neville the simple difference in plain English between the words them and they. Regional accents are fine, appealing even sometimes, but this one really grates!
Protestants mostly began as biblically based sects, but Catholics and Orthodox are much less based in scripture. They place much more weight on Church tradition and liturgy, and have an evolving tradition. More liberal Protestant sects are willing to recognise that the scriptures can be adapted over time, such as Anglicanism.
While Islam has schools of interpretation, all believe that the Koran is the unchangeable and final word of God. So updating Islam is more problematic.
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
Doubt it'll happen, though.
Mr. Dancer, The idea that is was true in its time and so could be re-interpreted falls at the first fence.
Consider the killing of animals for food. The ritual slaughter of an animal as laid down in their holy book may well have been the most humane (if you will forgive the term) at the time. A force then for good. Move the time on by 1400 years and new knowledge, new methods provide more "humane" methods of slaughter. However, if one is locked into idea that the contents of a book as being the literal word of God, then the passage of time and knowledge, is irrelevant.
I am no scholar of Islam, but I think the biggest issue is the Christian Bible is a combination of Jewish law, histories, prophecies, personal recollections (gospels) and letters. All inspired by the word of God. IIRC, according to believers, the Qu'ram was dictated by Gabriel to Mohammed, meaning that it is *literally* the word of God & therefore cannot be interpreted. The best parallel would be to look at the Mormons to see how they have managed to work with the plates of gold that John Smith found buried in New England
Traditionally, Christians believed that all the writings in the Bible were the ones that were so inspired by the Holy Spirit to such an extent it is the precise word of God. The idea that parts of it are subject to human error is very much a post-Enlightenment thing.
And Mormons have ditched politically unsustainable beliefs like polygamy and a ban on blacks taking the priesthood over the years.
Topic of the Day. Phil Neville on BBC MOTD last night. Was he auditioning for Jamaica Inn?
At such times of crap sporting punditry appointments, we remember the immortal words of Half Man, Half Biscuit:
"Well I’d like to meet Stephenson the engineer And I’d like to meet Faraday and buy him a beer And I’d love to meet the bloke who had the bright idea of Bob Wilson – anchorman"
Turns out where David Moyes went wrong at United was to let Phil Neville give the pre match pep talk to the Manchester United players.
I have the exact opposite view to Carnyx. If it was not for the MSM constantly trying to keep interest in the referendum alive the subject would be dead and buried.
Last week I went on a cycling trip with a group of 30 from a Hamilton gym to Skye. An articulate group of mostly middle class Scots. So did we discuss the referendum once on our trip. No. We spent an hour discussing the chance of England beating Italy but on the referendum nothing.
The vast majority of Scots who are going to vote have made up their mind and are keeping quiet now. There is no positive debate left, only name calling and general muck raking. This environment is not good for the Yes campaign as the SNP don't have the numbers to win on their own. They need to convince a large group of Labour voters to join with them.
So far Labour has stayed united and fought a good campaign. This week was typical with the main story being J K Rowling, a big Scot Labour supporter. She won votes in 2 ways. One by giving money and support to the No campaign and two by being attacked by the CyberNats.
I suggest looking at by-election results along with opinion polls to get some feeling of the mood. The last one fought was in South Lanarkshire and was remarkable in that the main shift in votes was from SNP to Tory. Labour still won the by-election and the shift was not that big maybe 4 to 5% of the votes case but it comes alongside a much better performance in the euros by the Tories as well. There were a group of Tories who switched to the SNP to get rid of Labour and some of these voters are returning as a result of the independence battle.
Over the last 2 years the SNP has being going slowly backwards in real elections as it has lost some of its protest and tactical votes. It is no longer cool to support the SNP. In summary if the Scots in general don't think there will be a Yes vote then I would listen to them.
Your anecdote has convinced me it's all over. Your 'Scots in general don't think there will be a Yes vote' point is based on a weighted sub sample of 172, almost as convincing as your anecdote.
The great thing about the question is it is not politically loaded. As such 172 is probably more than enough. My anecdote was just to show that the Scots are neither ready mentally or preparing for a Yes vote. There is no consensus being forged and those that will vote Yes are no longer interested in convincing others.
I wonder if truly in your heart you believe that you will win the referendum.
Trever Philipps has done new research finding a third of white British voters in London went UKIP, a third went Tory, and just a sixth went Labour. So it's nothing to do with Londoners differing from the rest of the UK. It's just demographics. Labour are incapable of winning over white British people - their long term strategy depends on importing more ethnic minorities.
As far as I remember (though I could be wrong) what Philips said is that two-thirds of Labour votes in the London EP poll came from minorities, while two-thirds of UKIP/Tory votes came from White British voters. My maths is not great, but as far as I can see that does not equate to only one-sixth of the Labour vote coming from white British people.
When did St Paul meet Jesus? and which is the earliest Gospel?
I think Matthew's Gospel was written c.70 AD, and is the oldest.
St. Paul never met Jesus, although he met plenty of people who had known Him.
I thought it was Mark, traditionally believed to have been written in the 60s, but some people now place it earlier. Matthew was independent, then Luke was written (largely based on Mark + conversations with Mary and others, hence the inclusion of a woman's perspective that is missing from the others). John was later, and more focused on the mystic aspects of Jesus's life.
The great thing about the question is it is not politically loaded. As such 172 is probably more than enough. My anecdote was just to show that the Scots are neither ready mentally or preparing for a Yes vote. There is no consensus being forged and those that will vote Yes are no longer interested in convincing others.
I wonder if truly in your heart you believe that you will win the referendum.
I think we CAN win the referendum; I leave the 'we will win' stuff to the no-ers.
@PeteWishart: Another incredible week in the polls as the big mo' rolls on. Their complacency & unshakeable belief they cant be beat will be their undoing
When was the last time the UK got its way without Germany?
Hard to say because the Council of Ministers isn't very transparent - the member states seem to like to game out who could win under QMV, then the losers join the winning side and produce unanimity.
Can you answer that question substituting - say - Italy?
No, I can't. Thats my point. Countries like Italy and the UK have very little influence. The fact that the system is hugely intransparent and unaccountable is not an argument in the EU's favour.
I mean the other way around, can you give me an example of the UK getting what it wants without Italy, which is what you asked me for for Germany to prove the Merkel Runs Everything theory.
Council of Ministers stitch-ups lack of transparency argues for: a) Normal democracy (EU parliament picks com pres etc) b) BOO c) Trust your national government, they know best!
Are there perhaps some international trade issues, where Italy can be protectionist at times?
In terms of option a) can you give me an example of where the UK has got its way in the European parliament, without the backing of the German bloc?
There isn't a UK bloc and a German bloc in the European Parliament silly, that's the whole point.
@PeteWishart: Another incredible week in the polls as the big mo' rolls on. Their complacency & unshakeable belief they cant be beat will be their undoing
Oh.
Yeah, a tweet referring to 'complacency & unshakeable belief' on the No side really refutes my point. #notverybright
Topic of the Day. Phil Neville on BBC MOTD last night. Was he auditioning for Jamaica Inn?
At such times of crap sporting punditry appointments, we remember the immortal words of Half Man, Half Biscuit: "Well I’d like to meet Stephenson the engineer And I’d like to meet Faraday and buy him a beer And I’d love to meet the bloke who had the bright idea of Bob Wilson – anchorman"
Turns out where David Moyes went wrong at United was to let Phil Neville give the pre match pep talk to the Manchester United players.
Yes and his brother seems incapable of coaching other full backs in defending. Dear Mr Baines, your job is to prevent crosses from your wing, not to give space and time to help the opposition.
@PeteWishart: Another incredible week in the polls as the big mo' rolls on. Their complacency & unshakeable belief they cant be beat will be their undoing
Oh.
I don't know whether Pete Wishart is agreeing with Theuniondivvie, or Theuniondivvie is agreeing with Pete Wishart, but both are right that the No side can be beaten. Quite why that deserves an "Oh" is unclear.
Topic of the Day. Phil Neville on BBC MOTD last night. Was he auditioning for Jamaica Inn?
At such times of crap sporting punditry appointments, we remember the immortal words of Half Man, Half Biscuit: "Well I’d like to meet Stephenson the engineer And I’d like to meet Faraday and buy him a beer And I’d love to meet the bloke who had the bright idea of Bob Wilson – anchorman"
Couldn't the BBC put aside a tiny, tiny fraction of its mega-million budget provided to overpay its so-called football experts in order to explain to Phil Neville the simple difference in plain English between the words them and they. Regional accents are fine, appealing even sometimes, but this one really grates!
This is from a family headed by Mr Neville Neville.
Do the Indy polls take into account the shy No voter ?
Or the shy Yes voter? A real issue for some folk in some areas.
Or the people newly restored to the electoral roll in the hitherto key Labour areas?
Don't know. All could be significant, but who knows? Will be interesting!
I don't doubt that some people are embarrassed to admit they are voting No, but the story is being pumped out by the Unionists at the same time as incessant stories that No is winning by a large margin and, now, stories that the public themselves believe that No will win - though this could be from the media rather than their own personal 'sampling'. Some potential contradiction there.
Comments
I'm not surprised the competency review is meaningless: why tip your hand at this stars of the discussion?
On bringing his party with him, he will clearly have considered it, and know where people stand on key issues. But it doesn't really become a consideration until you know the shape of the final deal and then make a call.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the UK thought Juncker was going to be really bad, it would have been good strategy to oppose, find another plausible candidate, and try to get other countries to agree. If you win you win, and if you lose you get at least some kind of consolation prize. The bad strategy was connecting it with a threat to leave the EU over it and creating a lot of additional drama, which just polarized opinion and made it much harder for other leaders, who may well have secretly wanted to avoid selecting Juncker too, to do what you want.
Relatedly, at the time of the flounce, it was a good strategy to try to get things that you wanted even if you were in a majority. It was a bad strategy to threaten to veto a deal and walk out, since it just resulted in the rest of the parties going ahead and making their own deal, without any concessions to the UK.
It's a good strategy to use your leverage, but it's a bad strategy to break your lever.
He was wrong, badly wrong. He should have some humility, shut his mouth and go away to retire somewhere sunny
Personally I would be happier seeing someone with experience of running a major country, say somewhere the size of Hampshire. And how many Presidents does Europe actually need? I think Rompuy stays, he is President of something slightly different.
These are the Daily Record/Sun in Scotland readers who buy the paper to check the football and latest on reality shows/celebrity gossip, not engage in deep and meaningful political debate. They voted Labour because their father did/does. They liked Gordon Brown and John Smith. They don't understand Ed Miliband. They are also the people the pollsters are not reaching.
They don't care what Obama, the Pope or anyone else says. Few of them sit down to watch 30 minute news programmes. They probably cant name their Labour MP or SNP MSP. Most probably have no idea which constituency they live in. They would be more likely to change their vote if Ally McCoist or Neil Lennon come out with strong statements for or against.
IF the YESNP can get these people out to vote in large numbers, YES will win. Its that simple. That is why they are the people YES is targeting really hard.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jun/21/hizb-ut-tahrir-pakistan-islamism
Pakistan and its problems are not monolithic and are not all related to Islamism. Corruption, ethnic and economic factors and a lack of leadership all play out differently in each province. I found the people of Sindh to be hugely sympathetic to our message. Conversely, the people of Mirpur, in "free" Kashmir, from where more than 90% of British Pakistanis come, and where sterling is a currency of choice, were hostile to the west.
This will be very important for him in 2016/17 if he wins the next election. It may well be that a compromise will be reached by which Juncker is appointed but committed to such an agenda. If so this would in fact be an important victory for Cameron even if it would be portrayed as a defeat.
There is a clear reluctance on the part of some important figures in the EU, notably the French, to have any constitutional discussions in the timescale that Cameron wants. I suspect this is driven by Hollande's belief that getting a yes to any change in France would be extremely problematic for him. Using this appointment of what will in fact prove to be a functionary is therefore quite smart politics by Cameron.
If such a reformation does come about it won't be quick (the Christian one took centuries to work through) and it won't happen as a result of outside pressure and it will never happen whilst the House of Saud has billions to spend promoting Wahhabism.
Didn't Lenin once say that the capitalists will sell the rope that will be used to hang them to the communists? So with the Wahhabi creed. All the time we are dependant on Saudi oil, and trying to flog them arms, then they will continue to fund the education programmes, and hence the terrorist spin-offs, that are antithetical to our national interest.
Can you answer that question substituting - say - Italy?
Mr. Llama, a possible 'out' for a reformation whilst considering the Quran to be literally true might be considering it to be of its time, with the fundamental principles eternal but specific commandments related to the time and place of Mohammed.
Doubt it'll happen, though.
Re interpretation goes on all the time, the problem is who is interpreting, and their motives.
Same as the Christian bible.
The problem is that if the UK leaves, then there is no realistic counterbalance to France - and the Nordic Alliance without the UK can't outweight the South. So Germany gets repeatedly outvoted.
That might be fine for the SDP, but it's less good for the CDU.
Similarly, his present objection to Juncker may be based on him not knowing that the Treaty of Lisbon brought in QMV for the Commission President election, not unanimity,[1] so again all he will achieve is that he'll make a fool of himself again
[1]: To be fair, I got caught out as well. But I'm not PM. What the EU needs and what it gets are two different things. What it will get is someone who can win a qualified majority of votes in an election by the 28 heads of government. Cameron's efforts should be directed to getting that qualified majority to vote for his preferred candidate. Given that a) he's started way too late, b) he doesn't have a preferred candidate and c) he should have worked this out months ago, I may be forgiven for thinking he is not competent in European matters. They speak directly to the audience (breaking the fourth wall), purse their lips frequently, murmur "you may think that, Mattie: I couldn't possibly comment", and make "pass the salt" sound like a death threat. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FauxAffablyEvil .
Consider the killing of animals for food. The ritual slaughter of an animal as laid down in their holy book may well have been the most humane (if you will forgive the term) at the time. A force then for good. Move the time on by 1400 years and new knowledge, new methods provide more "humane" methods of slaughter. However, if one is locked into idea that the contents of a book as being the literal word of God, then the passage of time and knowledge, is irrelevant.
Christianity suffers the same problem as Islam, both books were put into written form well after the deaths of the main actors.
Telling this to a fundamentalist of either religion, will get the same disbelieving stares.
I mean the other way around, can you give me an example of the UK getting what it wants without Italy, which is what you asked me for for Germany to prove the Merkel Runs Everything theory.
Council of Ministers stitch-ups lack of transparency argues for:
a) Normal democracy (EU parliament picks com pres etc)
b) BOO
c) Trust your national government, they know best!
Also, I wouldn't be so sure about the footie chappies. You will know Mr Lennon has left Celtic, and Mr McCoist is already publicly pro-indy, so no change there
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/apr/23/scotland.devolution1
However, note also the pro-Yes shifts of the ABC social classes in the new poll.
In terms of option a) can you give me an example of where the UK has got its way in the European parliament, without the backing of the German bloc?
And Mormons have ditched politically unsustainable beliefs like polygamy and a ban on blacks taking the priesthood over the years.
The Gospels were most likely written 30+ years after Jesus's death (although some suggestions that Mark was earlier, perhaps late 40s AD). The Letters and the Acts were pretty much contemporaneous (although the Bible itself was codified later). I don't think it is fair to criticise oral histories converted into texts for being written after the time, but even so they are superceded by the New Testament
Once again, I ask the question, why an all knowing God did not provide a scribe (or scribes) to create a contemporaneous account of both their teachings.
Either this was an oversight, intentional, or because the message was never meant to be written down, leaving the individual to search for the true meaning.
Specifically, the rending of the veil of the temple, suggests direct communication with God, something that I believe is also part of Islam.
To attempt to lump Christianity in with Islam as something that in its unadulterated form is not conducive to civil society is a gross distortion of the facts. We have examples of Christian 'extremists' all around us. Exclusive Brethren, Strict baptists, Nuns, Trappist Monks etc. Not the most interesting of people perhaps, but nothing that requires taming by some sort of secularist hectoring.
The rending of the veil does imply that a Priesthood is not needed to intermediate between man and his God. But that doesn't undermine the value that can be derived from close study of other's experiences and teachings.
I have the exact opposite view to Carnyx. If it was not for the MSM constantly trying to keep interest in the referendum alive the subject would be dead and buried.
Last week I went on a cycling trip with a group of 30 from a Hamilton gym to Skye. An articulate group of mostly middle class Scots. So did we discuss the referendum once on our trip. No. We spent an hour discussing the chance of England beating Italy but on the referendum nothing.
The vast majority of Scots who are going to vote have made up their mind and are keeping quiet now. There is no positive debate left, only name calling and general muck raking. This environment is not good for the Yes campaign as the SNP don't have the numbers to win on their own. They need to convince a large group of Labour voters to join with them.
So far Labour has stayed united and fought a good campaign. This week was typical with the main story being J K Rowling, a big Scot Labour supporter. She won votes in 2 ways. One by giving money and support to the No campaign and two by being attacked by the CyberNats.
I suggest looking at by-election results along with opinion polls to get some feeling of the mood. The last one fought was in South Lanarkshire and was remarkable in that the main shift in votes was from SNP to Tory. Labour still won the by-election and the shift was not that big maybe 4 to 5% of the votes case but it comes alongside a much better performance in the euros by the Tories as well. There were a group of Tories who switched to the SNP to get rid of Labour and some of these voters are returning as a result of the independence battle.
Over the last 2 years the SNP has being going slowly backwards in real elections as it has lost some of its protest and tactical votes. It is no longer cool to support the SNP. In summary if the Scots in general don't think there will be a Yes vote then I would listen to them.
I wonder if you'll see the same voting patterns emerge in the UK that exist in the Deep South of the US.
When did St Paul meet Jesus? and which is the earliest Gospel?
St. Paul never met Jesus, although he met plenty of people who had known Him.
Mark is considered the earliest Gospel but St Paul's epistles and Acts are the earliest surviving Christian writings. John is probably later than the three synoptic Gospels.
Your 'Scots in general don't think there will be a Yes vote' point is based on a weighted sub sample of 172, almost as convincing as your anecdote.
Depending on sources, "Mark" is indeed the earliest, and was originally 16 chapters, that were later expanded by appending extra verses that were not in the original, it missed out large portions of the "mysteries" such as the virgin birth and the resurrection.
The Devil went down to Jamaica
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip5e9NUvX6A&list=RDip5e9NUvX6A
Here's today's tips.
I've backed Switzerland and Ecuador to win their match, I'm making the assumption there won't be a draw so this strategy will yield a profit.
I've backed Honduras to defeat France, and Bosnia-Herzegovina to defeat Argentina.
My general strategy is to back the outsider, and usually trade out/cash out during the match.
As ever DYOR and go with a bookie that allows you to cash out during a match.
http://kateantiquity.com/band-of-angels/
One point that stuck with me, was that the early Christians did not expect to live long. They thought the end of the world was just over the horizon.
http://t.co/rURkWBal4B
http://t.co/VIluaaHWQN
"Well I’d like to meet Stephenson the engineer
And I’d like to meet Faraday and buy him a beer
And I’d love to meet the bloke who had the bright idea of
Bob Wilson – anchorman"
See N. Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium, (London, 1957).
Regional accents are fine, appealing even sometimes, but this one really grates!
While Islam has schools of interpretation, all believe that the Koran is the unchangeable and final word of God. So updating Islam is more problematic.
The great thing about the question is it is not politically loaded. As such 172 is probably more than enough. My anecdote was just to show that the Scots are neither ready mentally or preparing for a Yes vote. There is no consensus being forged and those that will vote Yes are no longer interested in convincing others.
I wonder if truly in your heart you believe that you will win the referendum.
@PeteWishart: Another incredible week in the polls as the big mo' rolls on. Their complacency & unshakeable belief they cant be beat will be their undoing
Oh.
Or the people newly restored to the electoral roll in the hitherto key Labour areas?
Don't know. All could be significant, but who knows? Will be interesting!
I don't doubt that some people are embarrassed to admit they are voting No, but the story is being pumped out by the Unionists at the same time as incessant stories that No is winning by a large margin and, now, stories that the public themselves believe that No will win - though this could be from the media rather than their own personal 'sampling'. Some potential contradiction there.