Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
Single State ? The word you are looking for is Annexation.
The original UN Partition Plan of 1947 called for three Arab and three Jewish cantons, interlinked by border crossings as well as UN (ie. neutral) control of Jerusalem.
We are entitled and indeed should criticise Israel when it behaves badly. But I'm very worried by the failure of leaders in this country to challenge the growth of anti-Semitism, the way that often (not always) criticism of Israel is either motivated by anti-Semitism or is expressed in ways which are, let's put it kindly, careless of the impression that is given and the way that Jews in this country have been targeted and attacked (as has also happened in other countries in Europe).
Baroness Warsi was quick to talk about Islamophobia even though, as the recent Trojan Horse reports have said, too often that term was used to justify shutting down any criticism of Islam. She's been less quick to denounce anti-Semitism, particularly when so much of it in recent years has come from parts of the Muslim community. Just as we must not shut down criticism of Israel by claiming that any criticism of it is anti-Semitic nor must we be afraid to say that calling Jews "apes and pigs" is wrong and disgusting, that walking round London holding up placards saying that "Hitler was right" and shouting "Death to Jews" is wrong and disgusting.
The last century has seen some terrible wars with appalling acts committed on people because of hatred fostered by ideology with too many others looking the other way. I felt strongly at the time of the Bosnian wars that one reason why we needed to help the Bosnian Muslims was precisely because we needed to show minority communities that we had truly learned the lessons of WW2. We did not and Srebenica happened while we looked the other way. I do not want the Palestinians to be obliterated and I find it appalling that some people in Israel (of all places) should be uttering such views.
Our politicians can do little about the Middle East. But they can do something about what happens in our country. We do not need the same culture of hate of a people based on their race or religion to develop again this century in Europe. Muslims rightly do not want to be the focus of hatred based on their religion; equally they need to understand that they cannot be given a free pass and allowed to promulgate hate against others based on their religion or race.
And now having stirred the pot (sorry!) off to do some work.
And your point is?
I would have thought his point is '' We do not need the same culture of hate of a people based on their race or religion to develop again this century in Europe. Muslims rightly do not want to be the focus of hatred based on their religion; equally they need to understand that they cannot be given a free pass and allowed to promulgate hate against others based on their religion or race.''
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
You are both incorrect.
The regnal number has nothing to do with the Union of the Crowns as differing numbers continued.
When the present queen ascended it was determined the higher regal number of the two countries for that name would constitute the actual number.
Thus Elizabeth II but a future James would be James VIII.
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
It does.
But it post-dates Queen Elizabeth I (of England). Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland at the time (don't think there was a King?). She was succeeded by her son, James VI of Scotland, who subsequently became James I of England. At this point there was a personal union of Crowns, but I don't think it was a legal Union of Crowns until later.
If you keep this up, I shall have to reassess your reliability on all matters to do with Hannibal.
The SNP have confirmed she will remain Queen Liz II.
What we need is Jacobite judgement on this.
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Will I say Alex Salmond is like Scipio Africanus, and Darling is like Hannibal?
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats. I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
But I read it in a blog - it MUST be true!!!!
It was written in Glasgow - not Bath - hence Malcolm's lack of faith.......
Yes and unlike the stuff written in Bath , you can check this one and see the omissions ( lies). I have the very document beside me.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
It does.
But it post-dates Queen Elizabeth I (of England). Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland at the time (don't think there was a King?). She was succeeded by her son, James VI of Scotland, who subsequently became James I of England. At this point there was a personal union of Crowns, but I don't think it was a legal Union of Crowns until later.
If you keep this up, I shall have to reassess your reliability on all matters to do with Hannibal.
The SNP have confirmed she will remain Queen Liz II.
What we need is Jacobite judgement on this.
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Will I say Alex Salmond is like Scipio Africanus, and Darling is like Hannibal?
More Likely Valerian I think
Would it be cruel if I said one was Peru, and one was Scotland.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
You are both incorrect.
The regnal number has nothing to do with the Union of the Crowns as differing numbers continued.
When the present queen ascended it was determined the higher regal number of the two countries for that name would constitute the actual number.
Thus Elizabeth II but a future James would be James VIII.
(But not for Jacobites ....)
Sadly, Jack, there is currently no active Jacobite claimant to the Throne. Franz of Bavaria is the current "claimant".
@malcolmg - some homework before Project Fib at 8pm:
..... institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in the referendum........
You vote to leave the UK and its institutions - but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your share of its assets & liabilities. Salmond's (allegedly) an economist and must know this - but all he's worried about is carrying Project Fib to the finish line.
Doh , so now the pound is an institution. So how can we not get institutions but be an institution in debt. You get barmier as the day goes on.
No, the pound is a monetary instrument issued on behalf of the UK Government by a UK institution the Bank of England
What possible consequences might you foresee from voting to leave the UK, and hence, its institutions....?
Its not that difficult, surely?
We own part of the institution despite your BNP logic. We will have our share and we will use our pound.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
Surely, TSE, you and your fellow PB Tories would be backing YES to the hilt to minimise the chances of a possible repeat of the 2005 Election in England?
Warsi should have learned by now that no matter how much she tried to ingratiate herself with the Tories , two matters did not help:
1. She was an Asian. 2. She was a Muslim.
Hence all the snide comments today.
I am not a Pakistani, so I would not know the cultural situation. However, I would be surprised if she had much support within her own community.
Tories, of course, used her. I am not sure who benefitted from it though. I don't think her resignation would matter much. Most Tories couldn't give a toss about what she said. She was an Asian Muslim...... that's about it. Tories would not have won much of the Muslim vote anyway. Perhaps the gangster types, worried about shielding their ill gotten gains do get attracted to the Tories. But there are so few of them.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
It does.
But it post-dates Queen Elizabeth I (of England). Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland at the time (don't think there was a King?). She was succeeded by her son, James VI of Scotland, who subsequently became James I of England. At this point there was a personal union of Crowns, but I don't think it was a legal Union of Crowns until later.
If you keep this up, I shall have to reassess your reliability on all matters to do with Hannibal.
The SNP have confirmed she will remain Queen Liz II.
What we need is Jacobite judgement on this.
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Will I say Alex Salmond is like Scipio Africanus, and Darling is like Hannibal?
More Likely Valerian I think
Would it be cruel if I said one was Peru, and one was Scotland.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
Surely, TSE, you and your fellow PB Tories would be backing YES to the hilt to minimise the chances of a possible repeat of the 2005 Election in England?
Just because something benefits your team in a partisan manner doesn't mean you should support it. Same thing for AV.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
The Scottish constituencies wouldn't count?
Cons would win a majority and we would have an EU referendum?
Bookies would be in a bit of a mess with people who had bought ukip vote percentage?
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
And your view on consocialisation?
Con-what? Never heard of it till 10 minutes ago
Very simplisitically, you need to get support from both Jewish and Arab Israelis to get a law through parliament. Effectively you will end up with coalitions of one Jewish focused and one Arab focused party. Giving both sides an effective veto should (in theory) prevent discrimination on basis of race or religion
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
Surely, TSE, you and your fellow PB Tories would be backing YES to the hilt to minimise the chances of a possible repeat of the 2005 Election in England?
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats. I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
But I read it in a blog - it MUST be true!!!!
It was written in Glasgow - not Bath - hence Malcolm's lack of faith.......
Yes and unlike the stuff written in Bath , you can check this one and see the omissions ( lies). I have the very document beside me.
Post what he left out. All he did was take the first three sentences of each. The UK Govt one was precise and accurate. The Scottish govt...less so - but since you claim the Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University is a liar - it behooves you to substantiate your claim......(and keep OGH out of trouble).....
@malcolmg - some homework before Project Fib at 8pm:
..... institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in the referendum........
You vote to leave the UK and its institutions - but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your share of its assets & liabilities. Salmond's (allegedly) an economist and must know this - but all he's worried about is carrying Project Fib to the finish line.
Doh , so now the pound is an institution. So how can we not get institutions but be an institution in debt. You get barmier as the day goes on.
No, the pound is a monetary instrument issued on behalf of the UK Government by a UK institution the Bank of England
What possible consequences might you foresee from voting to leave the UK, and hence, its institutions....?
Its not that difficult, surely?
So you are now on bold letters , when do you start cursing me out again. You need to learn that because you are one eyed not everyone else has limited vision.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
Surely, TSE, you and your fellow PB Tories would be backing YES to the hilt to minimise the chances of a possible repeat of the 2005 Election in England?
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
The Scottish constituencies wouldn't count.
Cons would win a majority and we would have an EU referendum?
Bookies would be in a bit of a mess with people who had bought ukip vote percentage?
If there's a yes vote
1) Dave could disenfranchise Scottish voters, and thus the bookies would void a lot of markets.
2) Scots would probably vote SNP en masse, that would life interesting, that would bugger up the seat band bets I and others have.
3) On an emotional level, Labour would be the most hurt, losing a heartland, and an intellectual heartland, the land of Keir Hardie, the Labour conference begins two days after the Indyref, can you imagine the atmosphere there?
4) The GB wide parties would probably engage in a Pro Rump UK policies, and not give Scotland an inch, such policies could disadvantage UKIP.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
The Scottish constituencies wouldn't count.
Cons would win a majority and we would have an EU referendum?
Bookies would be in a bit of a mess with people who had bought ukip vote percentage?
If there's a yes vote
1) Dave could disenfranchise Scottish voters, and thus the bookies would void a lot of markets.
2) Scots would probably vote SNP en masse, that would life interesting, that would bugger up the seat band bets I and others have.
3) On an emotional level, Labour would be the most hurt, losing a heartland, and an intellectual heartland, the land of Keir Hardie, the Labour conference begins two days after the Indyref, can you imagine the atmosphere there?
4) The GB wide parties would probably engage in a Pro Rump UK policies, and not give Scotland an inch, such policies could disadvantage UKIP.
Yeah but ukip are getting about 2% in Scotland aren't they? Massive drag on the vote. No jocks means ukip more likely to go up than down vote wise IMO
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
And your view on consocialisation?
Con-what? Never heard of it till 10 minutes ago
Very simplisitically, you need to get support from both Jewish and Arab Israelis to get a law through parliament. Effectively you will end up with coalitions of one Jewish focused and one Arab focused party. Giving both sides an effective veto should (in theory) prevent discrimination on basis of race or religion
Sounds a bit like the set-up in Lebanon, or is that too simplistic?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
Yes I know. Take a look at Northern Ireland right now.
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Thank God I am also boozing tonight! The hangover tomorrow will be worth it
So if I post this evening, I've backed Ireland to win next year's rugby world cup.....
You'd be wasting your money!
Currently we're giving the All Blacks a good match in the women's world cup though.
Women's rugby just isn't right or natural
Why aren't boys allowed to play netball
I've played netball I'll have you know.
At my school, one of the traditions during the last week of term, to win the Best Team of the year award, the Rugby team, took on the cricket, and football team at netball.
All boys schools, really are character building, and why us public schoolboys have such a reputation for purity and goodness.
@malcolmg - some homework before Project Fib at 8pm:
..... institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in the referendum........
You vote to leave the UK and its institutions - but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your share of its assets & liabilities. Salmond's (allegedly) an economist and must know this - but all he's worried about is carrying Project Fib to the finish line.
Doh , so now the pound is an institution. So how can we not get institutions but be an institution in debt. You get barmier as the day goes on.
No, the pound is a monetary instrument issued on behalf of the UK Government by a UK institution the Bank of England
What possible consequences might you foresee from voting to leave the UK, and hence, its institutions....?
Its not that difficult, surely?
So you are now on bold letters , when do you start cursing me out again. You need to learn that because you are one eyed not everyone else has limited vision.
Has your one finger got round to typing substantiation for your claim that the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow is a liar?
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
The Scottish constituencies wouldn't count.
Cons would win a majority and we would have an EU referendum?
Bookies would be in a bit of a mess with people who had bought ukip vote percentage?
If there's a yes vote
1) Dave could disenfranchise Scottish voters, and thus the bookies would void a lot of markets.
2) Scots would probably vote SNP en masse, that would life interesting, that would bugger up the seat band bets I and others have.
3) On an emotional level, Labour would be the most hurt, losing a heartland, and an intellectual heartland, the land of Keir Hardie, the Labour conference begins two days after the Indyref, can you imagine the atmosphere there?
4) The GB wide parties would probably engage in a Pro Rump UK policies, and not give Scotland an inch, such policies could disadvantage UKIP.
Yeah but ukip are getting about 2% in Scotland aren't they? Massive drag on the vote. No jocks means ukip more likely to go up than down vote wise IMO
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
And Mandela became President of S. Africa - your point is????
Does anyone else agree that Philip Hammond seems to be a natural as Foreign Secretary?
He gave an excellent interview about Baroness Warsi's resignation. Very diplomatic but at the same time firm about his own and the government's position.
He has been similarly good at Defence. His only fault has been at Transport where he kicked off £50bn of HS2 spending when "There is no money left".
Spending on the line will not begin until 2017. It won't cost 50 billion. That figure contains a very large 'political uncertainty' contingency - ie if political interference / protests cause the line to be different to that planned.
Warsi should have learned by now that no matter how much she tried to ingratiate herself with the Tories , two matters did not help:
1. She was an Asian. 2. She was a Muslim.
Hence all the snide comments today.
I am not a Pakistani, so I would not know the cultural situation. However, I would be surprised if she had much support within her own community.
Tories, of course, used her. I am not sure who benefitted from it though. I don't think her resignation would matter much. Most Tories couldn't give a toss about what she said. She was an Asian Muslim...... that's about it. Tories would not have won much of the Muslim vote anyway. Perhaps the gangster types, worried about shielding their ill gotten gains do get attracted to the Tories. But there are so few of them.
Good heavens - it must be pretty awful inside your head if that's the kind of comment which comes out.
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Thank God I am also boozing tonight! The hangover tomorrow will be worth it
So if I post this evening, I've backed Ireland to win next year's rugby world cup.....
You'd be wasting your money!
Currently we're giving the All Blacks a good match in the women's world cup though.
Women's rugby just isn't right or natural
Why aren't boys allowed to play netball
Men can play netball, but they have basketball which is not played by women generally. All the bouncing of balls and catching balls delivered at pace towards the chest area might not be good for them. I think this is why they play netball instead, although I am not an expert on the origins of the sport.
The orthodoxy is thatLabour voters don't turn out in safe Labour seats (moreso than Tories). Therefore the % vote is being depressed, rather than the % votes being "too high". In which case all the system does is entitle the Tories to feel better y looking at the vote numbers.
Did I read earlier that there was a Sindy poll expected tonight before the debate? If so does anyone know when it might be released?
Ipsos-Mori poll to be released at the start of the debate.
There is some heroic expectations management going on on the website that shall not be named. IPSOS Mori are 'no friendly' apparently......chortle.......
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats. I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
But I read it in a blog - it MUST be true!!!!
It was written in Glasgow - not Bath - hence Malcolm's lack of faith.......
Yes and unlike the stuff written in Bath , you can check this one and see the omissions ( lies). I have the very document beside me.
Post what he left out. All he did was take the first three sentences of each. The UK Govt one was precise and accurate. The Scottish govt...less so - but since you claim the Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University is a liar - it behooves you to substantiate your claim......(and keep OGH out of trouble).....
You going all financier now , threatening litigation. He said we lose the pound , that is an outright lie. I am not trembling in my boots. Get a life.
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
Yes I know. Take a look at Northern Ireland right now.
[Sunil puts on his best Gerry Adams voice] The Brits partitioned my country too, you know!
[but then he suddenly clutches his head screaming in agony as his Tebbit Chip kicks in...] Aaaaaargh!!!!
[...before a more servile expression crosses his face] Must...be...loyal...to...England.... Must...be...loyal....
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
A yes vote would have implications for the 2015 General Election.
The Scottish constituencies wouldn't count.
Cons would win a majority and we would have an EU referendum?
Bookies would be in a bit of a mess with people who had bought ukip vote percentage?
If there's a yes vote
1) Dave could disenfranchise Scottish voters, and thus the bookies would void a lot of markets.
2) Scots would probably vote SNP en masse, that would life interesting, that would bugger up the seat band bets I and others have.
3) On an emotional level, Labour would be the most hurt, losing a heartland, and an intellectual heartland, the land of Keir Hardie, the Labour conference begins two days after the Indyref, can you imagine the atmosphere there?
4) The GB wide parties would probably engage in a Pro Rump UK policies, and not give Scotland an inch, such policies could disadvantage UKIP.
Yeah but ukip are getting about 2% in Scotland aren't they? Massive drag on the vote. No jocks means ukip more likely to go up than down vote wise IMO
You won an MEP up there.
Yeah we got over 27% of the national vote too!... Different kettle of fish next year
In GE terms Scotland's a drag on the ukip vote... That's not a reason for my supporting independence though... I just know if I were Scottish I'd want to be master of my own destiny.
As someone who has only ever lived in the South East, I don't feel anything for Scotland that I wouldn't for Italy or Timbuktu...and I am sure they feel the same about SE England.
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats. I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
But I read it in a blog - it MUST be true!!!!
It was written in Glasgow - not Bath - hence Malcolm's lack of faith.......
Yes and unlike the stuff written in Bath , you can check this one and see the omissions ( lies). I have the very document beside me.
Post what he left out. All he did was take the first three sentences of each. The UK Govt one was precise and accurate. The Scottish govt...less so - but since you claim the Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University is a liar - it behooves you to substantiate your claim......(and keep OGH out of trouble).....
You going all financier now , threatening litigation. He said we lose the pound , that is an outright lie. I am not trembling in my boots. Get a life.
You said he 'lied' by omitting parts of what the Scottish government said (tho you didn't complain when he also omitted parts of what the UK government said - he simply quoted the opening three sentences of each)
Either man up and post proof of these 'lies' that you claim he made - or skulk off back under your passive aggressive rock and fester.
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
Yes I know. Take a look at Northern Ireland right now.
[Sunil puts on his best Gerry Adams voice] The Brits partitioned my country too, you know!
[but then he suddenly clutches his head screaming in agony as his Tebbit Chip kicks in...] Aaaaaargh!!!!
[...before a more servile expression crosses his face] Must...be...loyal...to...England.... Must...be...loyal....
Bloody Indians helped partition the country of my ancestors country as well
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
And Mandela became President of S. Africa - your point is????
Nelson Mandela was a great man and Menachen Begin was a fucking terrorist !
If you really dont want to get OGH in trouble why not just drop it after raising it for the umpteenth time?
So malcolmg should just smear (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) public figures with impunity? And twice hardly counts as 'umpteenth'...
What an absolute jessie, you seriously need to get a hobby. Read my other comment , he said we lose the pound , that is an outright lie.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle....
You wrote:
I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
Post what he omitted to prove your claim - or be seen for the knave, fool, poltroon and coward you are.....
"Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. "
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
"Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. "
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
"Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. "
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
Quite possibly they decided that expressing their views to the Israeli Ambassador was more effective than grandstanding to the media
"Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. "
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
Quite possibly they decided that expressing their views to the Israeli Ambassador was more effective than grandstanding to the media
Are you seriously suggesting that our Prime Minister would turn down the chance of grandstanding to the media? Whether he could do anything about the situation or not?
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
It was written in Glasgow - not Bath - hence Malcolm's lack of faith.......
Yes and unlike the stuff written in Bath , you can check this one and see the omissions ( lies). I have the very document beside me.
Post what he left out. All he did was take the first three sentences of each. The UK Govt one was precise and accurate. The Scottish govt...less so - but since you claim the Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University is a liar - it behooves you to substantiate your claim......(and keep OGH out of trouble).....
You going all financier now , threatening litigation. He said we lose the pound , that is an outright lie. I am not trembling in my boots. Get a life.
You said he 'lied' by omitting parts of what the Scottish government said (tho you didn't complain when he also omitted parts of what the UK government said - he simply quoted the opening three sentences of each)
Either man up and post proof of these 'lies' that you claim he made - or skulk off back under your passive aggressive rock and fester.
OOOOOH Missus , you got Perry Mason eyeballing my comments. You really are a sad sack. He was economical with the truth simple.
"Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. "
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
Quite possibly they decided that expressing their views to the Israeli Ambassador was more effective than grandstanding to the media
Are you seriously suggesting that our Prime Minister would turn down the chance of grandstanding to the media? Whether he could do anything about the situation or not?
If it was something where quiet diplomacy was able to achieve something that grandstanding would not, thenI would hope so! (although it can't be proved... All I can do is point to how quiet they kept the pension reforms ahead of the budget so demonstrate that they can do so if they want)
"Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. "
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
Quite possibly they decided that expressing their views to the Israeli Ambassador was more effective than grandstanding to the media
Are you seriously suggesting that our Prime Minister would turn down the chance of grandstanding to the media? Whether he could do anything about the situation or not?
If it was something where quiet diplomacy was able to achieve something that grandstanding would not, thenI would hope so! (although it can't be proved... All I can do is point to how quiet they kept the pension reforms ahead of the budget so demonstrate that they can do so if they want)
The pension reforms were largely the work of the LibDem part of the government so of course Cameron kept quiet.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
I find this surprisingly naive from a UKIP supporter. One of UKIPs roles surely is to reveal to the public the true extent that European institutions have undermined and continue to undermine the sovereignty of the UK parliament. UKIP have strenuously (and quite rightly) argued that the EU controls around 75% of all legislation going through the UK parliament, and that's before you even think of autonomous UK Government decisions that have clearly been taken in deference to EU ambitions -aircraft carriers with no planes; HS2 etc.
It should be clear to anyone who pays attention that the UK parliament is a bit like The Bastille in the French Revolution -hugely symbolic, but when it was stormed, only a few mangey prisoners were released. The Westminster cupboard is bare -there is no independence left to claim. On the contrary, as a small province of the EU, Scotland will probably be forced to join the euro, give up a share of their national resources, and surrender even more control over day to day running of their affairs. It's the wrong independence Gromit.
If you're are saying this because you think there's an electoral advantage for UKIP in this, I think you should give it more thought. England's smooth exit from the EU, and certainly our prosperity and security afterwards, will not be helped by an EU dependent neighbour to the north. It's also lacking in ambition, no? UKIPs cause is just. Either the whole UK (or certainly the overwhelming majority) will wake up to the basic concept that being in the EU is terrible for this country, or they won't -and if they don't, we'll lose. That's the ambition -not to just try and leverage the small (albeit much improved) minority we have at the moment.
Nice to see the Tories funding another astroturf organisation. Obviously Vote No Borders getting stuck at 6 members was not successful enough. Dave's pal from JCB ponying up again. Why are they unable to do it via their BT front organisation one wonders. http://scottishresearchsociety.com/about-scottish-research-society/
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
I find this surprisingly naive from a UKIP supporter. One of UKIPs roles surely is to reveal to the public the true extent that European institutions have undermined and continue to undermine the sovereignty of the UK parliament. UKIP have strenuously (and quite rightly) argued that the EU controls around 75% of all legislation going through the UK parliament, and that's before you even think of autonomous UK Government decisions that have clearly been taken in deference to EU ambitions -aircraft carriers with no planes; HS2 etc.
It should be clear to anyone who pays attention that the UK parliament is a bit like The Bastille in the French Revolution -hugely symbolic, but when it was stormed, only a few mangey prisoners were released. The Westminster cupboard is bare -there is no independence left to claim. On the contrary, as a small province of the EU, Scotland will probably be forced to join the euro, give up a share of their national resources, and surrender even more control over day to day running of their affairs. It's the wrong independence Gromit.
If you're are saying this because you think there's an electoral advantage for UKIP in this, I think you should give it more thought. England's smooth exit from the EU, and certainly our prosperity and security afterwards, will not be helped by an EU dependent neighbour to the north. It's also lacking in ambition, no? UKIPs cause is just. Either the whole UK (or certainly the overwhelming majority) will wake up to the basic concept that being in the EU is terrible for this country, or they won't -and if they don't, we'll lose. That's the ambition -not to just try and leverage the small (albeit much improved) minority we have at the moment.
Wow , a first year politics students view of independence. LOL
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
I find this surprisingly naive from a UKIP supporter. One of UKIPs roles surely is to reveal to the public the true extent that European institutions have undermined and continue to undermine the sovereignty of the UK parliament. UKIP have strenuously (and quite rightly) argued that the EU controls around 75% of all legislation going through the UK parliament, and that's before you even think of autonomous UK Government decisions that have clearly been taken in deference to EU ambitions -aircraft carriers with no planes; HS2 etc.
It should be clear to anyone who pays attention that the UK parliament is a bit like The Bastille in the French Revolution -hugely symbolic, but when it was stormed, only a few mangey prisoners were released. The Westminster cupboard is bare -there is no independence left to claim. On the contrary, as a small province of the EU, Scotland will probably be forced to join the euro, give up a share of their national resources, and surrender even more control over day to day running of their affairs. It's the wrong independence Gromit.
If you're are saying this because you think there's an electoral advantage for UKIP in this, I think you should give it more thought. England's smooth exit from the EU, and certainly our prosperity and security afterwards, will not be helped by an EU dependent neighbour to the north. It's also lacking in ambition, no? UKIPs cause is just. Either the whole UK (or certainly the overwhelming majority) will wake up to the basic concept that being in the EU is terrible for this country, or they won't -and if they don't, we'll lose. That's the ambition -not to just try and leverage the small (albeit much improved) minority we have at the moment.
Wow , a first year politics students view of independence. LOL
I'm not a student (life would be a lot more fun if I were). It also happens to be the truth, which I suspect you realise.
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
It's really not hard to understand. It's the exact same reason plenty of Scottish people are bothered one way or the other whether Scotland goes independent or not - we feel that, however much we may be proud of England/Scotland, the joining of them both with the other Home Nations enhances us all in a shared national identity.
Fair enough if some English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish person does not feel any sense of enhancement from that shared identity for whatever reason, or even to feel as though it is silly for anyone to feel any such pride and enhancement, but it surely is not hard to see why others might feel that way.
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
Guys, John McTernan has declared the coalition over...... it really is over!
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
What are these tricksy Lib-Dems up to now?
The cynic in me says, to shore up their voters who joined the Lib Dems post Iraq, that's what the Yellow Peril are up to.
I mean when you're polling at 6%, you've got to do something.
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
It was written in Glasgow - not Bath - hence Malcolm's lack of faith.......
Yes and unlike the stuff written in Bath , you can check this one and see the omissions ( lies). I have the very document beside me.
Post what he left out. All he did was take the first three sentences of each. The UK Govt one was precise and accurate. The Scottish govt...less so - but since you claim the Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University is a liar - it behooves you to substantiate your claim......(and keep OGH out of trouble).....
You going all financier now , threatening litigation. He said we lose the pound , that is an outright lie. I am not trembling in my boots. Get a life.
You said he 'lied' by omitting parts of what the Scottish government said (tho you didn't complain when he also omitted parts of what the UK government said - he simply quoted the opening three sentences of each)
Either man up and post proof of these 'lies' that you claim he made - or skulk off back under your passive aggressive rock and fester.
He was economical with the truth simple.
While you lied.....
Nah - you said he lied - couldnt prove it - and told a lie yourself - back off under your passive aggressive rock to fester some more.....
"Of course, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. But we have consistently made clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties and have called on Israel to exercise restraint, and to find ways to bring this fighting to an end. "
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
Quite possibly they decided that expressing their views to the Israeli Ambassador was more effective than grandstanding to the media
Are you seriously suggesting that our Prime Minister would turn down the chance of grandstanding to the media? Whether he could do anything about the situation or not?
If it was something where quiet diplomacy was able to achieve something that grandstanding would not, thenI would hope so! (although it can't be proved... All I can do is point to how quiet they kept the pension reforms ahead of the budget so demonstrate that they can do so if they want)
The pension reforms were largely the work of the LibDem part of the government so of course Cameron kept quiet.
Nah - a joint effort. Webb (I think) handled a lot of the detail, but a big move like that needs the support of the Chancellor. (And if it was truly the LD only, then wouldn't the Tories try and claim credit up front anyway...)
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
Golly, brave to torpedo the coalition with his ratings where they are.
Ed Fraser @frasereC4 1m Baroness Warsi on #Gaza tells #C4news: "There is concern at ministerial level." Says she has heard a Minister threaten resignation
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
I find this surprisingly naive from a UKIP supporter. One of UKIPs roles surely is to reveal to the public the true extent that European institutions have undermined and continue to undermine the sovereignty of the UK parliament. UKIP have strenuously (and quite rightly) argued that the EU controls around 75% of all legislation going through the UK parliament, and that's before you even think of autonomous UK Government decisions that have clearly been taken in deference to EU ambitions -aircraft carriers with no planes; HS2 etc.
It should be clear to anyone who pays attention that the UK parliament is a bit like The Bastille in the French Revolution -hugely symbolic, but when it was stormed, only a few mangey prisoners were released. The Westminster cupboard is bare -there is no independence left to claim. On the contrary, as a small province of the EU, Scotland will probably be forced to join the euro, give up a share of their national resources, and surrender even more control over day to day running of their affairs. It's the wrong independence Gromit.
If you're are saying this because you think there's an electoral advantage for UKIP in this, I think you should give it more thought. England's smooth exit from the EU, and certainly our prosperity and security afterwards, will not be helped by an EU dependent neighbour to the north. It's also lacking in ambition, no? UKIPs cause is just. Either the whole UK (or certainly the overwhelming majority) will wake up to the basic concept that being in the EU is terrible for this country, or they won't -and if they don't, we'll lose. That's the ambition -not to just try and leverage the small (albeit much improved) minority we have at the moment.
Just trying to put myself in a Scotsman position and say how I would feel. Definitely not because of any advantage ukip might gain, I'd say the same if it hurt our cause
Can only speak for myself, but I don't understand why any Englishman is bothered one way or the other whether Scotland stay or goes.
It's really not hard to understand. It's the exact same reason plenty of Scottish people are bothered one way or the other whether Scotland goes independent or not - we feel that, however much we may be proud of England/Scotland, the joining of them both with the other Home Nations enhances us all in a shared national identity.
Fair enough if some English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish person does not feel any sense of enhancement from that shared identity for whatever reason, or even to feel as though it is silly for anyone to feel any such pride and enhancement, but it surely is not hard to see why others might feel that way.
Not knocking anyone, just can't see the fuss personally (as a southern Englishman)
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
What are these tricksy Lib-Dems up to now?
The cynic in me says, to shore up their voters who joined the Lib Dems post Iraq, that's what the Yellow Peril are up to.
I mean when you're polling at 6%, you've got to do something.
Clegg panics as he sees the bandwagon seats filling up quickly and tries to jump aboard... The BBC surely mistaken to report tonight that: "the truce has drawn an international welcome, and the focus for a longer deal will now fall on talks in Cairo." Surely international focus is on the utterings of the Deputy Prime Minister...
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Thank God I am also boozing tonight! The hangover tomorrow will be worth it
So if I post this evening, I've backed Ireland to win next year's rugby world cup.....
You'd be wasting your money!
Currently we're giving the All Blacks a good match in the women's world cup though.
Women's rugby just isn't right or natural
Why aren't boys allowed to play netball
Netball is so freaking boring it should be classified as torture to be made to play and / or watch it.
But Test Cricket is the most boring sport in the entire world, clearly invented by people with FAR too much time on their hands.
And golf.
Nosense. Test Cricket is the best game in the world bar none
I'm a proper football nut, been going to Chelsea since 1963 and played myself to a decent standard. I still like the drama of the Premier League but as I've got older I find I can't stand the ludicrous amounts of money washing around at the top level.
Whereas these days I can watch a Test match from the first ball to the last, I love it.
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
Again, these things the Lib Dems always do to try to "differentiate" themselves from the Conservatives only make their problems worse. It's ALWAYS going to lead to the question of: if you disagree with the Tories so much, why are you still in government with them? They can go on all they want about being "mature" and "acting in the national interest", but as far as the public sees it, they're just being unprincipled and thinking getting their snouts in the trough of "power" is more important than anything else.
Oh, do not question the ways of Dame Helen. She’s timeless and ageless and has more sexual oomph in her well-manicured little finger than Miley Cyrus has in her entire yoga-toned body. Gaze on this vision, ye mighty, and despair.
Comments
Personally if I were Scottish I'd want to be independent and can see why they get irate with Englishman telling they shouldn't. As for the argument that we are all one happy family etc, it's a bit rich for an Englishman to say that when it's obvious that England is the head of the household and the other three countries are treated as the somewhat subservient wife and kids
I say vote YES!
The regnal number has nothing to do with the Union of the Crowns as differing numbers continued.
When the present queen ascended it was determined the higher regal number of the two countries for that name would constitute the actual number.
Thus Elizabeth II but a future James would be James VIII.
(But not for Jacobites ....)
Currently we're giving the All Blacks a good match in the women's world cup though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria
1. She was an Asian. 2. She was a Muslim.
Hence all the snide comments today.
I am not a Pakistani, so I would not know the cultural situation. However, I would be surprised if she had much support within her own community.
Tories, of course, used her. I am not sure who benefitted from it though. I don't think her resignation would matter much. Most Tories couldn't give a toss about what she said. She was an Asian Muslim...... that's about it. Tories would not have won much of the Muslim vote anyway. Perhaps the gangster types, worried about shielding their ill gotten gains do get attracted to the Tories. But there are so few of them.
Cons would win a majority and we would have an EU referendum?
Bookies would be in a bit of a mess with people who had bought ukip vote percentage?
1) Dave could disenfranchise Scottish voters, and thus the bookies would void a lot of markets.
2) Scots would probably vote SNP en masse, that would life interesting, that would bugger up the seat band bets I and others have.
3) On an emotional level, Labour would be the most hurt, losing a heartland, and an intellectual heartland, the land of Keir Hardie, the Labour conference begins two days after the Indyref, can you imagine the atmosphere there?
4) The GB wide parties would probably engage in a Pro Rump UK policies, and not give Scotland an inch, such policies could disadvantage UKIP.
At my school, one of the traditions during the last week of term, to win the Best Team of the year award, the Rugby team, took on the cricket, and football team at netball.
All boys schools, really are character building, and why us public schoolboys have such a reputation for purity and goodness.
Wouldn't want to get OGH in trouble, would you?
And golf.
The Brits partitioned my country too, you know!
[but then he suddenly clutches his head screaming in agony as his Tebbit Chip kicks in...]
Aaaaaargh!!!!
[...before a more servile expression crosses his face]
Must...be...loyal...to...England.... Must...be...loyal....
In GE terms Scotland's a drag on the ukip vote... That's not a reason for my supporting independence though... I just know if I were Scottish I'd want to be master of my own destiny.
As someone who has only ever lived in the South East, I don't feel anything for Scotland that I wouldn't for Italy or Timbuktu...and I am sure they feel the same about SE England.
Either man up and post proof of these 'lies' that you claim he made - or skulk off back under your passive aggressive rock and fester.
You wrote:
I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
Post what he omitted to prove your claim - or be seen for the knave, fool, poltroon and coward you are.....
He wrote:
It may very well be that an independent Scotland would keep the pound
Who is the outright liar?
You go girl - you'll be at umpteen before the debate starts.
This is from Cameron's reply to Warsi.
When did the government make "clear our grave concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties" ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/social-worker-vacancies-soar--and-so-do-workloads-9644673.html
It should be clear to anyone who pays attention that the UK parliament is a bit like The Bastille in the French Revolution -hugely symbolic, but when it was stormed, only a few mangey prisoners were released. The Westminster cupboard is bare -there is no independence left to claim. On the contrary, as a small province of the EU, Scotland will probably be forced to join the euro, give up a share of their national resources, and surrender even more control over day to day running of their affairs. It's the wrong independence Gromit.
If you're are saying this because you think there's an electoral advantage for UKIP in this, I think you should give it more thought. England's smooth exit from the EU, and certainly our prosperity and security afterwards, will not be helped by an EU dependent neighbour to the north. It's also lacking in ambition, no? UKIPs cause is just. Either the whole UK (or certainly the overwhelming majority) will wake up to the basic concept that being in the EU is terrible for this country, or they won't -and if they don't, we'll lose. That's the ambition -not to just try and leverage the small (albeit much improved) minority we have at the moment.
http://scottishresearchsociety.com/about-scottish-research-society/
George Eaton @georgeeaton 5m
Clegg calls for arms licences for Israel to be suspended. Does the government still have a collective foreign policy?
John McTernan @johnmcternan 3m
.@georgeeaton No. The Coalition is now over.
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 2m
Are the Lib Dems ready to bring the government down if Cameron and Hammond won't suspend arms licences to Israel? This seems big.
Fair enough if some English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish person does not feel any sense of enhancement from that shared identity for whatever reason, or even to feel as though it is silly for anyone to feel any such pride and enhancement, but it surely is not hard to see why others might feel that way.
I mean when you're polling at 6%, you've got to do something.
Nah - you said he lied - couldnt prove it - and told a lie yourself - back off under your passive aggressive rock to fester some more.....
And patent political positioning.
Baroness Warsi on #Gaza tells #C4news: "There is concern at ministerial level." Says she has heard a Minister threaten resignation
Whereas these days I can watch a Test match from the first ball to the last, I love it.
Oh, do not question the ways of Dame Helen. She’s timeless and ageless and has more sexual oomph in her well-manicured little finger than Miley Cyrus has in her entire yoga-toned body. Gaze on this vision, ye mighty, and despair.
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/helen-mirren-twerking