There have been around 50 Titanic movies, the first one featuring a survivor and rushed out within months of the sinking. The most bonkers (but glorious) one is the Nazi one - one of the most expensive films the regime ever made, but never screened in Germany, half way through the director was murdered by the Gestapo - tho arguably the 1997 film was more anti-British....
Apart from the general fact that older people tend to turn out we still haven't had much analysis (that I'm aware of) of general turnout possibilities and the possible nature of any differential turnout and motivation of Yes & No voters.
You would think it would be 100%. Its amazing to think that 20% will not vote. How does this work - do the polls pick up the 20% who do not vote and cast them aside and consider the rest? If they do not then how accurate can their trawl be?
They will be lucky to be polling anywhere near 50% , many many are registering for the first time ever. They are not rich middle class NO voters either, big shock in store.
Salmond's negative strategy is in marked contrast to the first debate, when the first minister's longstanding adviser, executive coach Claire Howell, worked with him on presenting an upbeat, optimistic vision to voters and avoiding nationalistic, partisan rhetoric.
Come on. You'll be the amongst the most invective if there is a no vote.
No - if there is a No vote I'll be relieved - and if there's a Yes vote I'm on record as wishing SINDY all the best for her transition - tho lies the YESNP have told will make it difficult.
At the heart of the SNP’s campaign for Scottish independence lies a simple claim: that Scots are different. This is a modern take on nationalism. Earlier variants would have had it that Scots were not just different but better. To their credit, the SNP leadership have worked hard over the last twenty years or more to decouple their movement from this darker side of nationalism – its ethnic variety – and to focus instead on civic identity.
The problem with the SNP’s modern take on nationalism is not that it is dangerous (which ethnic nationalism always is), but that it is wrong.
An unfortunate groupthink pervades a large part of today’s Scottish political commentary, in which Scots are portrayed as frustrated Scandinavian-style social democrats, illegitimately held back under the yoke of English neo-liberalism. Were this an accurate picture of modern Scotland, the Yes campaign might have moved ahead in the opinion polls by now. But it is not – and just how skewed an impression of Scotland this is has become clearer over the course of the long campaign.
(OT) I have just found out (from googling) that Romeo Beckham has epilepsy. Would that be the reason why he has not done the ice bucket challenge, when Romeo and Cruz both have done?
Only three data-points and the second-derivative looks like "swing-back". Unless the third-derivative is signalling a hidden surprise - and I can't be asked to calculate it - then "Yes" betting is reaching it's peek.
Shame that the Scots only have a few weeks to grow a-pair. Mirrlees latest rant on debt is fine by me: All those Scottish public-sector pensions will no longer be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Treasury.
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and vegetables.
Sounds reasonably healthy, no?
Then California introduced the new rules on calorie information... 2800 calories in a single meal...
Never been able to order it again...
:-(
That's the trouble, isn't it? The really tasty stuff is bad for us.....here's an even more depressing way of looking at it - to work off the calories in the pie only (2078) you'd need to walk for nearly 10 hours......
I understand the hospital's dilemma - they need to sell stuff people want to buy - but with Salmond gearing up to blame Westminster and the Tories for Scotland's NHS travails tonight, the solution lies a lot closer to home - but it's far too easy to blame someone else, than face up to your own responsibility. How long before someone claims Thatcher put that pie in the menu?
(OT) I have just found out (from googling) that Romeo Beckham has epilepsy. Would that be the reason why he has not done the ice bucket challenge, when Romeo and Cruz both have done?
Oh dear. Controllable of course, and no reason why his life shouldn’t be like anyone else’s, but he’ll always have to be that bit careful. And money can’t make it any different.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
Sir James Mirrlees thinks Scotland should not pay its share of the debt (currently £143bn) unless we get a currency union with rUK.
I mean it is not as if there were a range of ways in which Scotland's largest trading partner could retaliate against such an absurd position is it? Its not like rUK would be able to veto EU membership for example or restrict the ability of Scottish financial firms to trade in their largest market or refuse to make sterling available any time the Scottish government needed overnight funds or....
I mean really. This is the largest political decision of my lifetime and we are having to even debate this kind of gibberish?
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
Not so sure.
Spain will not want to set any form of precedent as Catalonia is even more ready than Scotland to break away, and the Basques could then follow. Belgium is still at risk of fission, notwithstanding it hosts the EU.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
Not so sure.
Spain will not want to set any form of precedent as Catalonia is even more ready than Scotland to break away, and the Basques could then follow. Belgium is still at risk of fission, notwithstanding it hosts the EU.
Would it ever come to a point where Flanders is absorbed by the Netherlands, Wallonia by France, and Brussels is an independent city-state as capital of the EU?
Mr. kle4, I'm pretty awful at catching up on things, though (finally got caught up with The Walking Dead before the last episodes left the on-demand service. Baffled why it's stuck on 5* rather than a bigger channel).
Mr. L, well, quite, and that's without considering the sentimental aspect. It's not going to ensure that, to use Salmond's words, post-Yes Scotland and England would be 'best pals'.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
That may well be the Spanish government's stance - but what guarantees are there parliament woukd toe the line? Quinn's point was about getting legislation through parliaments.
What is it about Nobel prize winners in economics which makes them think they can then spout any old rubbish in any field loosely connected with economics?
Living thousands of miles away probably helps - in this case Hong Kong - so no need to worry about the practical impact of your advice.....
There does seem to be a pattern of the Scottish government's "experts" all coming from a long way away.....
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
Not so sure.
Spain will not want to set any form of precedent as Catalonia is even more ready than Scotland to break away, and the Basques could then follow. Belgium is still at risk of fission, notwithstanding it hosts the EU.
It's hard to exclude an independent, stable, democratic European country from EU membership forever and would prove politically very difficult. What you can do, though, is insist on all the rules being followed. That's what Spain will do. And that, in itself, will send a message. In any case, the Catalans will get Basque-style devo-max soon enough and separation will quietly fade away as a frontline issue - as it pretty much has in the Basque country. Indeed, if the Scots had what the Basques have there'd be no referendum taking place on 18th September.
Sir James Mirrlees thinks Scotland should not pay its share of the debt (currently £143bn) unless we get a currency union with rUK.
I mean it is not as if there were a range of ways in which Scotland's largest trading partner could retaliate against such an absurd position is it? Its not like rUK would be able to veto EU membership for example or restrict the ability of Scottish financial firms to trade in their largest market or refuse to make sterling available any time the Scottish government needed overnight funds or....
I mean really. This is the largest political decision of my lifetime and we are having to even debate this kind of gibberish?
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
That may well be the Spanish government's stance - but what guarantees are there parliament woukd toe the line? Quinn's point was about getting legislation through parliaments.
The list system means that party leaderships very rarely get second guessed. MPs are more delegates than representatives.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
Not so sure.
Spain will not want to set any form of precedent as Catalonia is even more ready than Scotland to break away, and the Basques could then follow. Belgium is still at risk of fission, notwithstanding it hosts the EU.
Would it ever come to a point where Flanders is absorbed by the Netherlands, Wallonia by France, and Brussels is an independent city-state as capital of the EU?
It's very far from clear that either country wants them.....living in Brussels I quickly learnt much better to stick to English than French in some parts of town.....
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and vegetables.
Sounds reasonably healthy, no?
Then California introduced the new rules on calorie information... 2800 calories in a single meal...
Never been able to order it again...
:-(
That's the trouble, isn't it? The really tasty stuff is bad for us.....here's an even more depressing way of looking at it - to work off the calories in the pie only (2078) you'd need to walk for nearly 10 hours......
I understand the hospital's dilemma - they need to sell stuff people want to buy - but with Salmond gearing up to blame Westminster and the Tories for Scotland's NHS travails tonight, the solution lies a lot closer to home - but it's far too easy to blame someone else, than face up to your own responsibility. How long before someone claims Thatcher put that pie in the menu?
Given you live in England why are you so bothered, perhaps you should check your local area and give them the benefit of your dripping vitriol. What is it that makes people who leave Scotland hate the country so much.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
What is it about Nobel prize winners in economics which makes them think they can then spout any old rubbish in any field loosely connected with economics?
Living thousands of miles away probably helps - in this case Hong Kong - so no need to worry about the practical impact of your advice.....
There does seem to be a pattern of the Scottish government's "experts" all coming from a long way away.....
LOL, and that from Lord Haw Haw. You could not make it up , loud mouthed embittered scottish emigrant complains about people outside Scotland having an opinion.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I can't see a way back after a Yes. If Scots change their minds - which I very much doubt - the rUK will know it is for economic reasons only and that's no basis for an on-going Union. The nationalists understand this and are focused only on getting that Yes. The rest is detail. If you believe Scotland should be a sovereign state, what does it really matter to you if standards of living are higher or lower?
No, no, no. We've had enough erosion of that concept already.
It's also interesting that Boris wants the Turks to close the border. That would be exceptionally hard to do for several reasons: firstly, it is a humanitarian corridor and Turkey's doing a great job in helping the million-odd refugees from the Syrian conflict alone. Closing the border would largely disable the flow of humanitarian aid across. However, some of the Brits killed over there as insurgents went in aid convoys, and the Charity Commission has made associated warnings. However many people will have gone over there with the best of humanitarian ideals.
Secondly, the border between Turkey and Syria is vast. Texas alone has found it impossible to close their border with Mexico: how can Turkey expect to stop individuals of ill-will crossing?
That's not to say Turkey couldn't do more if they wanted, and also that the Turkish government is of one mind on the issue of the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts.
Mr. Alex, if Scotland were to change its mind between a Yes vote and the conclusion of negotiations (I can't see this happening because I don't think such a mechanism exists) then probably.
But if Scotland leaves, has a few years of independence and decides it wants to come back, I do not think it would be well-received, if only due to the rejection of the UK and the immense difficulty and stress of unravelling centuries of union.
Sad ex Scottish emigrant and now establishment British Nationalist supporter complains about some YES supporters not being resident in Scotland. Dear Dear the establishment are concerned, you getting flaky about your gong Carlotta, stooping ever lower as you and your nasty friends plumb the depths.
The debate may have moved on but the currency issue will not go away. People can now see that a successful currency union requires political union. Taxpayers in one country will not make transfers to support another without this pooling of sovereignty. The problems surrounding the euro make this all too plain.
This, however, remains the preferred option of Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister. He states, correctly, that maintaining the sterling currency union is in the best interests of the people of Scotland. Oddly, though, he seems unable to accept that this would require negating the very independence gained by a Yes vote. So he threatens that – unless he secures a currency union but without political union – Scotland will refuse to accept its share of UK national debt. This is a breathtaking threat. It is also economically incomprehensible.
No, no, no. We've had enough erosion of that concept already.
I'd agree with you on that. I don't mind a situation where someone goes to Syria, and they are automatically put on a watch-list unless they tell HMG why they are going there (and is verified)... perhaps this is what Boris means?
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
HA HA HA , now we have the fantasist British Nats joining the circus.
Mr. Alex, if Scotland were to change its mind between a Yes vote and the conclusion of negotiations (I can't see this happening because I don't think such a mechanism exists) then probably.
But if Scotland leaves, has a few years of independence and decides it wants to come back, I do not think it would be well-received, if only due to the rejection of the UK and the immense difficulty and stress of unravelling centuries of union.
MD, Don't you worry , there i snot a queue of the other countries that got their freedom lining up to rejoin. I think the fantasist is just that and the fact that you even consider it a possibility is concerning.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I think that’s a good thought. We confidently expect a high poll ..... I’ve seen 80% quoted ....... but 50.1% of those voting still means there’s an element of doubt. It wouldn’t take many SNP MSP’s to start having concerns to bring about a change of heart.
According to CNN - French PM Valls today presented President Francois Hollande with the resignation of the current government, however, Hollande has asked Valls to form a new government, which will be announced tomorrow.
Sounds like a bank holiday game of musical chairs.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I think that’s a good thought. We confidently expect a high poll ..... I’ve seen 80% quoted ....... but 50.1% of those voting still means there’s an element of doubt. It wouldn’t take many SNP MSP’s to start having concerns to bring about a change of heart.
Dear Dear and you are normally reasonably sensible, are you catching the infection on here for fantasy re Scottish matters.
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and vegetables.
Sounds reasonably healthy, no?
Then California introduced the new rules on calorie information... 2800 calories in a single meal...
Never been able to order it again...
:-(
That's the trouble, isn't it? The really tasty stuff is bad for us.....here's an even more depressing way of looking at it - to work off the calories in the pie only (2078) you'd need to walk for nearly 10 hours......
I understand the hospital's dilemma - they need to sell stuff people want to buy - but with Salmond gearing up to blame Westminster and the Tories for Scotland's NHS travails tonight, the solution lies a lot closer to home - but it's far too easy to blame someone else, than face up to your own responsibility. How long before someone claims Thatcher put that pie in the menu?
Lots of approving comments on that Dundee pie!
Hospital cooked breakfasts and steamed puddings are the best bit. Mass catering doesn't work for salads...
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
Spain won't block per se, but will insist on due process - that is, no fast tracking and no special status, but treatment as a normal applicant country with all the conditions to be fulfilled that this requires.
Not so sure.
Spain will not want to set any form of precedent as Catalonia is even more ready than Scotland to break away, and the Basques could then follow. Belgium is still at risk of fission, notwithstanding it hosts the EU.
While the negotiations are ongoing, would the Spanish fishing fleet have to leave Scottish waters? That might concentrate minds in Madrid.
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and vegetables.
Sounds reasonably healthy, no?
Then California introduced the new rules on calorie information... 2800 calories in a single meal...
Never been able to order it again...
:-(
That's the trouble, isn't it? The really tasty stuff is bad for us.....here's an even more depressing way of looking at it - to work off the calories in the pie only (2078) you'd need to walk for nearly 10 hours......
I understand the hospital's dilemma - they need to sell stuff people want to buy - but with Salmond gearing up to blame Westminster and the Tories for Scotland's NHS travails tonight, the solution lies a lot closer to home - but it's far too easy to blame someone else, than face up to your own responsibility. How long before someone claims Thatcher put that pie in the menu?
Given you live in England why are you so bothered, perhaps you should check your local area and give them the benefit of your dripping vitriol. What is it that makes people who leave Scotland hate the country so much.
So you think Ninewells hospital should consider selling such food? Or the SNP Health Minister should have a point of view about it? Or that Scotland enjoys such an excellent standard of health and life expectancy that such trivia are beneath you?
What is it about the Nats that they can't see a ball without playing the man?
Mr. Alex, if Scotland were to change its mind between a Yes vote and the conclusion of negotiations (I can't see this happening because I don't think such a mechanism exists) then probably.
But if Scotland leaves, has a few years of independence and decides it wants to come back, I do not think it would be well-received, if only due to the rejection of the UK and the immense difficulty and stress of unravelling centuries of union.
Only the first scenario, obviously there is no way back AFTER actual independence. I see SO's point but whilst agreeing that it leaves the whole basis for the Union terribly undermined I can't see that it is definite that Westminster would pass the necessary legislation in the absence of as Scottish administration demanding it. And after all, wasn't the entire original basis for the Union economic, so it would be kind of fitting if it was reaffirmed on that basis...!
Economics is of course at the core of the no campaign as well...
According to CNN - French PM Valls today presented President Francois Hollande with the resignation of the current government, however, Hollande has asked Valls to form a new government, which will be announced tomorrow.
Sounds like a bank holiday game of musical chairs.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I think that’s a good thought. We confidently expect a high poll ..... I’ve seen 80% quoted ....... but 50.1% of those voting still means there’s an element of doubt. It wouldn’t take many SNP MSP’s to start having concerns to bring about a change of heart.
Dear Dear and you are normally reasonably sensible, are you catching the infection on here for fantasy re Scottish matters.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I can't see a way back after a Yes. If Scots change their minds - which I very much doubt - the rUK will know it is for economic reasons only and that's no basis for an on-going Union. The nationalists understand this and are focused only on getting that Yes. The rest is detail. If you believe Scotland should be a sovereign state, what does it really matter to you if standards of living are higher or lower?
Yep - if its a 'Yes' I think Scotland will consolidate behind that position and move forward, come what may (I wish I had the same confidence in the event of a 'no').
Whether the SNP is rewarded - or punished - in subsequent elections as Project Fib comes apart in their hands is a matter for the people of Scotland.
Spain have already publicly stated they will not go against a democratic vote.
So they'll recognize an independent Scotland. Not sure what relevance that has to their approach to Scottish membership of the EU (in terms of fast tracking, I agree they won't veto). Still as I read 49% are apparently in favour of leaving the EU thing probably isn't much of a vote winner for NO.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
HA HA HA , now we have the fantasist British Nats joining the circus.
Sounds like a bank holiday game of musical chairs.
Sounds like a roundabout way of sacking Mountebourg. I'm sure every subsequent downturn to the French economy will still be described as a blow to socialism though.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I can't see a way back after a Yes. If Scots change their minds - which I very much doubt - the rUK will know it is for economic reasons only and that's no basis for an on-going Union. The nationalists understand this and are focused only on getting that Yes. The rest is detail. If you believe Scotland should be a sovereign state, what does it really matter to you if standards of living are higher or lower?
Yep - if its a 'Yes' I think Scotland will consolidate behind that position and move forward, come what may (I wish I had the same confidence in the event of a 'no').
Whether the SNP is rewarded - or punished - in subsequent elections as Project Fib comes apart in their hands is a matter for the people of Scotland.
I must say that I expect that in the event of a “small” No ...... say 55-45 ....... we’ll be here again in a few years. Especially if there’s a Conservative government in Westminster. I hope you’re right about Yes, though. Although I’ve postulated a rethink in certain circumstances, and I fear it could happen, I would think it’s one of the worse outcomes.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
I must say that I expect that in the event of a “small” No ...... say 55-45 ....... we’ll be here again in a few years. Especially if there’s a Conservative government in Westminster. I hope you’re right about Yes, though. Although I’ve postulated a rethink in certain circumstances, and I fear it could happen, I would think it’s one of the worse outcomes.
Surely it depends on who is in control at Holyrood
I must say that I expect that in the event of a “small” No ...... say 55-45 ....... we’ll be here again in a few years.
Only if the SNP repeats its remarkable success of 2011 (or gets very close to it taking into account Green and any independent nationalists / socialists). Otherwise the unionist parties would have the votes to block a referendum.
Sounds like a bank holiday game of musical chairs.
Sounds like a roundabout way of sacking Mountebourg. I'm sure every subsequent downturn to the French economy will still be described as a blow to socialism though.
Seems a bit drastic, why not just sack the French Economy Minister - Valls no balls?
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and vegetables.
Sounds reasonably healthy, no?
Then California introduced the new rules on calorie information... 2800 calories in a single meal...
Never been able to order it again...
:-(
That's the trouble, isn't it? The really tasty stuff is bad for us.....here's an even more depressing way of looking at it - to work off the calories in the pie only (2078) you'd need to walk for nearly 10 hours......
What is it about the Nats that they can't see a ball without playing the man?
It is none of my business. I am not a food Nazi to be able to tell people what they should and should not eat. It is even less of your business from England , butt out and go solve your local obesity problem if it bothers you that other people eat stuff that you do not like. As Fox said the comments do not agree with your extreme Nationalist position, it is not your prerogative to tell people what they should or should not eat.
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and vegetables.
Sounds reasonably healthy, no?
Then California introduced the new rules on calorie information... 2800 calories in a single meal...
Never been able to order it again...
:-(
That's the trouble, isn't it? The really tasty stuff is bad for us.....here's an even more depressing way of looking at it - to work off the calories in the pie only (2078) you'd need to walk for nearly 10 hours......
What is it about the Nats that they can't see a ball without playing the man?
It is none of my business. I am not a food Nazi to be able to tell people what they should and should not eat. It is even less of your business from England , butt out and go solve your local obesity problem if it bothers you that other people eat stuff that you do not like. As Fox said the comments do not agree with your extreme Nationalist position, it is not your prerogative to tell people what they should or should not eat.
It is none of my business. I am not a food Nazi to be able to tell people what they should and should not eat. It is even less of your business from England , butt out and go solve your local obesity problem if it bothers you that other people eat stuff that you do not like. As Fox said the comments do not agree with your extreme Nationalist position, it is not your prerogative to tell people what they should or should not eat.
It is none of my business. I am not a food Nazi to be able to tell people what they should and should not eat. It is even less of your business from England , butt out and go solve your local obesity problem if it bothers you that other people eat stuff that you do not like. As Fox said the comments do not agree with your extreme Nationalist position, it is not your prerogative to tell people what they should or should not eat.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I think that’s a good thought. We confidently expect a high poll ..... I’ve seen 80% quoted ....... but 50.1% of those voting still means there’s an element of doubt. It wouldn’t take many SNP MSP’s to start having concerns to bring about a change of heart.
Dear Dear and you are normally reasonably sensible, are you catching the infection on here for fantasy re Scottish matters.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and
:-(
That's the trouble, isn't it? The really tasty stuff is bad for us.....here's an even more depressing way of looking at it - to work off the calories in the pie only (2078) you'd need to walk for nearly 10 hours......
I understand the hospital's dilemma - they need to sell stuff people want to buy - but with Salmond gearing up to blame Westminster and the Tories for Scotland's NHS travails tonight, the solution lies a lot closer to home - but it's far too easy to blame someone else, than face up to your own responsibility. How long before someone claims Thatcher put that pie in the menu?
Given you live in England why are you so bothered, perhaps you should check your local area and give them the benefit of your dripping vitriol. What is it that makes people who leave Scotland hate the country so much.
So you think Ninewells hospital should consider selling such food? Or the SNP Health Minister should have a point of view about it? Or that Scotland enjoys such an excellent standard of health and life expectancy that such trivia are beneath you?
What is it about the Nats that they can't see a ball without playing the man?
The pie was not on the patients menu, but was on the staff one. Looks tasty to me!
No one thinks this sort of food healthy, the question is one of freedom. Should the medical profession enforce healthy living on an unwilling populace?
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
Holy Roman Empire and Germany? Took almost a thousand years, however!
It's disgusting the food the NHS are serving in NHS England - all part of the plan to privatise the whole thing and kill off the working classes by feeding them artery hardening fatty stodge - it's genocide I tell you!
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating! Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
Given you live in England why are you so bothered, perhaps you should check your local area and give them the benefit of your dripping vitriol. What is it that makes people who leave Scotland hate the country so much.
So you think Ninewells hospital should consider selling such food? Or the SNP Health Minister should have a point of view about it? Or that Scotland enjoys such an excellent standard of health and life expectancy that such trivia are beneath you?
What is it about the Nats that they can't see a ball without playing the man?
The pie was not on the patients menu, but was on the staff one. Looks tasty to me!
No one thinks this sort of food healthy, the question is one of freedom. Should the medical profession enforce healthy living on an unwilling populace?
Fox, exactly and eaten once in a while as part of a balanced diet it would be of no harm to anyone. I imagine Carlotta has a svelte figure and eats only healthy food as she barks out commands to her minions.
It's a Them v Us thing. That's how Yes wins. And it's the winning that's important. The Yrs side now has less than four weeks to hold the line. Once they've won nothing that was said previously matters in the slightest. The Union is done for and that is the only thing that counts. This will slowly dawn on folk over the following months and years - but as Salmond says, Scottish independence is worth the end of his political career and the disbandment of the SNP.
Is this definitely true though? It seems to me that the great undiscussed about this debate is what happens between the vote and actual independence. It is surely one of the major problems with any decision based on 50%+1, rather than larger majorities that really represent "settled will".
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
I can't see a way back after a Yes. If Scots change their minds - which I very much doubt - the rUK will know it is for economic reasons only and that's no basis for an on-going Union. The nationalists understand this and are focused only on getting that Yes. The rest is detail. If you believe Scotland should be a sovereign state, what does it really matter to you if standards of living are higher or lower?
Yep - if its a 'Yes' I think Scotland will consolidate behind that position and move forward, come what may (I wish I had the same confidence in the event of a 'no').
Whether the SNP is rewarded - or punished - in subsequent elections as Project Fib comes apart in their hands is a matter for the people of Scotland.
I must say that I expect that in the event of a “small” No ...... say 55-45 ....... we’ll be here again in a few years. Especially if there’s a Conservative government in Westminster. I hope you’re right about Yes, though. Although I’ve postulated a rethink in certain circumstances, and I fear it could happen, I would think it’s one of the worse outcomes.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States. Sorry I missed your final sentence.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States.
As you say, the Confederacy was, effectively, conquered. RobD’s example stands. I think it’s happened in Thailand, although that was more like a vice-royalty returning to the fold.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States. Sorry I missed your final sentence.
Ha Ha , unionists are now down to predicting civil war if Scotland vote YES, how desperate can you get.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States. Sorry I missed your final sentence.
Ha Ha , unionists are now down to predicting civil war if Scotland vote YES, how desperate can you get.
Where on earth (or in pb) did you read that? Talk about others being fantasists!
Sunil On present polls Ed is clearly winning even without Scotland, in fact Scotland is the only UK region he is polling lower than Brown
O/T Had a fascinating afternoon at Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire, scene of the murder of Kind Edward II in 1342, allegedly by a red hot poker, and home of the Berkeley family since Saxon times (1 was a former governor of Virginia, another gave his name to University of California at Berkeley). Next door is the house of Dr Jenner, who discovered the smallpox vaccine
Assuming he didn't survive incognito, Edward probably died in 1327. The red hot poker story originates with Geoffrey Le Baker, who was writing 30 years later, and was one of the few chroniclers who admired Edward, and wanted to portray him as a martyr, foully murdered by his evil wife. It makes no sense. If you wanted to dispose of someone in a way that made it seem like death by natural causes, using a method that leaves the victim screaming so loudly that the inhabitants of Berkeley can hear him is entirely counter-productive. Doctors also take the view that death would not be instantaneous, if this method was used. It would take some days for the victim to die of peritonitis.
The theory that Edward was not in fact murdered does have some quite solid evidence to support it. Ian Mortimer addresses the issue at length in The Greatest Traitor, and Medieval Conspiracies.
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
Scotland was 'conquered' thrice, the last time by Cromwell's Commonwealth. The 'Traitors' of the 1707 Parliament were part of a recently resurrected institution.
But, no: I do not see Scotland as a colony but as a member if the Imperial Set (along with my fellow bog-trotters). I do not wish Scotland to stay with - let alone come back to - Westminster but I will point out - when and where - that much of the WoS guff we hear is false and counter-factual.
As for your last sentence: GERMANY!!!
:shakes-head-profusely:
EtA: The reunion was in the 'Nineties. Not the 1870's. RobD....
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States. Sorry I missed your final sentence.
Ha Ha , unionists are now down to predicting civil war if Scotland vote YES, how desperate can you get.
Well, there was a civil war the last time part of the UK left! Mind you it only left after a war in the first place.
The problem for the NO campaign is getting people out to vote. They will be less motivated than YES supporters. If this causes a vote in favour of independence, then there will be years of mess. Whilst Alex Salmond may want independence to start sometime in 2016, it is not within his control. It would be up to Westminster to pass legislation and they will work to their own timetable. I don't expect Scottish MP's from Labour and Lib Dems will allow rushed legislation, wishing to debate at length every aspect.
But isn't England going to wreck the Scottish run, Scottish controlled, Scottish NHS?
Isn't that Eck's big pitch tonight?
They can any time they wish as Westminster controls the budget and has all the powers. If they are allowed to they will wreck it and give it to their chums like you to pillage it. Then you will be able to dictate what people eat. You will be rewarded for your slavish support of the establishment but only if the people of Scotland are stupid enough to allow the carpetbaggers to succeed.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States. Sorry I missed your final sentence.
Ha Ha , unionists are now down to predicting civil war if Scotland vote YES, how desperate can you get.
Where on earth (or in pb) did you read that? Talk about others being fantasists!
Why else would Monica bring up the confederacy , she is stupid but cunning. It was not done by mistake. You are obviously getting a bit doddery and not too quick on the uptake.
The problem for the NO campaign is getting people out to vote. They will be less motivated than YES supporters. If this causes a vote in favour of independence, then there will be years of mess. Whilst Alex Salmond may want independence to start sometime in 2016, it is not within his control. It would be up to Westminster to pass legislation and they will work to their own timetable. I don't expect Scottish MP's from Labour and Lib Dems will allow rushed legislation, wishing to debate at length every aspect.
In that scenario, that sounds like a good way for the SNP to sweep the country at the next election...
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
Scotland was 'conquered' thrice, the last time by Cromwell's Commonwealth. The 'Traitors' of the 1707 Parliament were part of a recently resurrected institution.
But, no: I do not see Scotland as a colony but as a member if the Imperial Set (along with my fellow bog-trotters). I do not wish Scotland to stay with - let alone come back to - Westminster but I will point out - when and where - that much of the WoS guff we hear is false and counter-factual.
As for your last sentence: GERMANY!!!
:shakes-head-profusely:
EtA: The reunion was in the 'Nineties. Not the 1870's. RobD....
Thought the Cromwellian “war” was partly at any rate between one set of Scots and another?
And TBH I thought RobD WAS referring to the last century.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!!
n 1967, Britain granted Saint Kitts and Nevis full internal autonomy, and Anguilla was also incorporated into the new unified dependency, named Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, against the wishes of many Anguillians. This led to two rebellions in 1967 and 1969 (Anguillian Revolution), headed by Ronald Webster, and a brief period as a self-declared independent republic. The goal of the revolution was not independence per se, but rather independence from Saint Kitts and Nevis, and a return to being a British colony. British authority was fully restored in July 1971, and in 1980 Anguilla was finally allowed to secede from Saint Kitts and Nevis and become a separate British Crown colony (now a British overseas territory).
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were. Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States. Sorry I missed your final sentence.
Ha Ha , unionists are now down to predicting civil war if Scotland vote YES, how desperate can you get.
Where on earth (or in pb) did you read that? Talk about others being fantasists!
Why else would Monica bring up the confederacy , she is stupid but cunning. It was not done by mistake. You are obviously getting a bit doddery and not too quick on the uptake.
Somewhat different topic, Mr G. We’d diverted onto countries reuniting and, as she agreed, missed the last line of my earlier post.
Comments
There have been around 50 Titanic movies, the first one featuring a survivor and rushed out within months of the sinking. The most bonkers (but glorious) one is the Nazi one - one of the most expensive films the regime ever made, but never screened in Germany, half way through the director was murdered by the Gestapo - tho arguably the 1997 film was more anti-British....
http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-wilson-a-letter-to-the-referendum-losers-1-3519133
Salmond's negative strategy is in marked contrast to the first debate, when the first minister's longstanding adviser, executive coach Claire Howell, worked with him on presenting an upbeat, optimistic vision to voters and avoiding nationalistic, partisan rhetoric.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/24/alex-salmond-nhs-scottish-independence-tv-debate-alistair-darling
At the heart of the SNP’s campaign for Scottish independence lies a simple claim: that Scots are different. This is a modern take on nationalism. Earlier variants would have had it that Scots were not just different but better. To their credit, the SNP leadership have worked hard over the last twenty years or more to decouple their movement from this darker side of nationalism – its ethnic variety – and to focus instead on civic identity.
The problem with the SNP’s modern take on nationalism is not that it is dangerous (which ethnic nationalism always is), but that it is wrong.
An unfortunate groupthink pervades a large part of today’s Scottish political commentary, in which Scots are portrayed as frustrated Scandinavian-style social democrats, illegitimately held back under the yoke of English neo-liberalism. Were this an accurate picture of modern Scotland, the Yes campaign might have moved ahead in the opinion polls by now. But it is not – and just how skewed an impression of Scotland this is has become clearer over the course of the long campaign.
http://www.votenoborders.co.uk/_is_scotland_different_professor_adam_tomkins
I have just found out (from googling) that Romeo Beckham has epilepsy. Would that be the reason why he has not done the ice bucket challenge, when Romeo and Cruz both have done?
Only three data-points and the second-derivative looks like "swing-back". Unless the third-derivative is signalling a hidden surprise - and I can't be asked to calculate it - then "Yes" betting is reaching it's peek.
Shame that the Scots only have a few weeks to grow a-pair. Mirrlees latest rant on debt is fine by me: All those Scottish public-sector pensions will no longer be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Treasury.
Thank goodness the NHS IN Scotland is run by Scottish Politicians and controlled from Edinburgh - as the SNP pointed out in their 2011 Manifesto.
I mean, look at the muck they are serving in Dundee England:
So much for healthy eating!
Hospital sells 800-calorie 'heart attack pie' stuffed with bacon, sausage, black pudding, egg and beans - next to the cardiac ward
Meal - sold in Dundee - is a third of a man's recommended calorie intake
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733144/So-healthy-eating-Hospital-canteen-sells-800-calorie-heart-attack-pie-stuffed-bacon-sausage-black-pudding-egg-beans-despite-calls-ban.html#ixzz3BNKgavMN
I used to really like Claimjumper's chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes and vegetables.
Sounds reasonably healthy, no?
Then California introduced the new rules on calorie information... 2800 calories in a single meal...
Never been able to order it again...
:-(
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-other-menu-items-favorite-chicken-pot-pie_f-ZmlkPTE3NDY2MQ.html
I understand the hospital's dilemma - they need to sell stuff people want to buy - but with Salmond gearing up to blame Westminster and the Tories for Scotland's NHS travails tonight, the solution lies a lot closer to home - but it's far too easy to blame someone else, than face up to your own responsibility. How long before someone claims Thatcher put that pie in the menu?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11054157/Scottish-independence-Alex-Salmond-urged-to-go-negative-in-TV-debate-against-Alistair-Darling.html
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11054187/Spain-and-Belgium-would-veto-an-independent-Scotlands-EU-membership.html
But what does he know......and as for YESNP:
.....the example of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11054359/Scotland-should-not-take-on-UK-debt-unless-it-can-keep-the-pound.html
Sir James Mirrlees thinks Scotland should not pay its share of the debt (currently £143bn) unless we get a currency union with rUK.
I mean it is not as if there were a range of ways in which Scotland's largest trading partner could retaliate against such an absurd position is it? Its not like rUK would be able to veto EU membership for example or restrict the ability of Scottish financial firms to trade in their largest market or refuse to make sterling available any time the Scottish government needed overnight funds or....
I mean really. This is the largest political decision of my lifetime and we are having to even debate this kind of gibberish?
Spain will not want to set any form of precedent as Catalonia is even more ready than Scotland to break away, and the Basques could then follow. Belgium is still at risk of fission, notwithstanding it hosts the EU.
Mr. kle4, I'm pretty awful at catching up on things, though (finally got caught up with The Walking Dead before the last episodes left the on-demand service. Baffled why it's stuck on 5* rather than a bigger channel).
Mr. L, well, quite, and that's without considering the sentimental aspect. It's not going to ensure that, to use Salmond's words, post-Yes Scotland and England would be 'best pals'.
There does seem to be a pattern of the Scottish government's "experts" all coming from a long way away.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28865399
By John Curtice
Professor of politics at Strathclyde University
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28921754
Also wants change to law so suspects are guilty until proven innocent
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11054093/Do-nothing-and-we-invite-the-tide-of-terror-to-our-front-door.html
Surely it is possible to envisage a scenario where much of the "YES" promises unravel during the process of negotiation? Pollsters won't stop polling and it is possible that support for independence plummets (it is also possible that support hardens, especially the situation is successfully portrayed as "Westminster instransigence/games", but i'm only dealing in possibilities here). With support plummeting on the back of 'broken promises' some parties will break ranks and stand for elections to Scottish parliament on the back of repudiating the independence vote. And be successful. And scupper the whole thing.
(Scotland will probably pay a heavy price subsequently, with the rest of the UK in little mood to forgive and forget, but they will have them back).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28924279
No, no, no. We've had enough erosion of that concept already.
It's also interesting that Boris wants the Turks to close the border. That would be exceptionally hard to do for several reasons: firstly, it is a humanitarian corridor and Turkey's doing a great job in helping the million-odd refugees from the Syrian conflict alone. Closing the border would largely disable the flow of humanitarian aid across. However, some of the Brits killed over there as insurgents went in aid convoys, and the Charity Commission has made associated warnings. However many people will have gone over there with the best of humanitarian ideals.
Secondly, the border between Turkey and Syria is vast. Texas alone has found it impossible to close their border with Mexico: how can Turkey expect to stop individuals of ill-will crossing?
That's not to say Turkey couldn't do more if they wanted, and also that the Turkish government is of one mind on the issue of the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts.
But if Scotland leaves, has a few years of independence and decides it wants to come back, I do not think it would be well-received, if only due to the rejection of the UK and the immense difficulty and stress of unravelling centuries of union.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?240487-French-PM-Presents-Government-Resignation
EtA: Beaten by our Italian-resident Scots lass....
Sounds like a bank holiday game of musical chairs.
Hospital cooked breakfasts and steamed puddings are the best bit. Mass catering doesn't work for salads...
What is it about the Nats that they can't see a ball without playing the man?
Economics is of course at the core of the no campaign as well...
A good day to buy Sterling. Shame we English are partaking a public holiday...!
Whether the SNP is rewarded - or punished - in subsequent elections as Project Fib comes apart in their hands is a matter for the people of Scotland.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110628/lead/lead1.html
I hope you’re right about Yes, though. Although I’ve postulated a rethink in certain circumstances, and I fear it could happen, I would think it’s one of the worse outcomes.
Theory: No colony has ever chosen to return to Westminster
Exemption: The Ulster-Jocks do not count (sorry Y0kel, Alanbrooke and Lord-Justice RH).
BUSTED!!! [Src.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anguilla#History ]
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Worshippers of 'The Wee Blue Book of Bath' should learn some history....
:face-palm:
Surely the comparison is with a country breaking apart and then re-uniting. Scotland volunteered to become part of the Union (albeit under a degree of deception) and an earlier King (JamesVI/I) proposed that Union a century earlier. It was never a colony, or conquered in the sense that Wales and Ireland were.
Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
No one thinks this sort of food healthy, the question is one of freedom. Should the medical profession enforce healthy living on an unwilling populace?
Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
Holy Roman Empire and Germany? Took almost a thousand years, however!
Have there been any unions of countries that broke apart and then re-united, other than, (eg the US) as a result of war?
The Confederacy briefly left the United States.
Sorry I missed your final sentence.
As you say, the Confederacy was, effectively, conquered. RobD’s example stands. I think it’s happened in Thailand, although that was more like a vice-royalty returning to the fold.
Amended to take account of editing elsewhere.
Isn't that Eck's big pitch tonight?
Sorry I missed your final sentence.
Ha Ha , unionists are now down to predicting civil war if Scotland vote YES, how desperate can you get.
Where on earth (or in pb) did you read that? Talk about others being fantasists!
The theory that Edward was not in fact murdered does have some quite solid evidence to support it. Ian Mortimer addresses the issue at length in The Greatest Traitor, and Medieval Conspiracies.
But, no: I do not see Scotland as a colony but as a member if the Imperial Set (along with my fellow bog-trotters). I do not wish Scotland to stay with - let alone come back to - Westminster but I will point out - when and where - that much of the WoS guff we hear is false and counter-factual.
As for your last sentence: GERMANY!!!
:shakes-head-profusely:
EtA: The reunion was in the 'Nineties. Not the 1870's. RobD....
Well, there was a civil war the last time part of the UK left! Mind you it only left after a war in the first place.
So I'm not the only one who doesn't like multi millionaire tax dodgers.
Why else would Monica bring up the confederacy , she is stupid but cunning. It was not done by mistake. You are obviously getting a bit doddery and not too quick on the uptake.
Hollande is a really a great model for how we should be running our economy...
And TBH I thought RobD WAS referring to the last century.
Somewhat different topic, Mr G. We’d diverted onto countries reuniting and, as she agreed, missed the last line of my earlier post.
Be careful though; your paranoia is showing!