politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make Salmond the favourite to “win” tonight’s debate
Tonight’s the big one in the the IndyRef campaign. With postal packs due to go out by the end of the week large numbers of Scottish voters could have cast their votes a week today.
The key point is that will Salmond have any factual answers to the points on which he failed last time, and will he have any factual economic proposals to make?
Alex Salmond's problem is that the entire case for independence has been screwed up. The SNP's response to any objection, or indeed mild question, has been that 'nothing will change', irrespective of whether that requires the agreement of third parties. I can't see how he can reverse out of that cul-de-sac at this late stage. So I expect Darling will again win the arguments, although Salmond might win on rhetoric. No bet for me.
Meanwhile, I see that François Hollande is continuing to give us a master-class in what a Miliband government would be like.
Salmond " really hadn’t thought it through or put in the serious preparation ". The recurring theme of the whole SNP independence campaign. A bunch of chancers who got found out.
'Absurd' at 3-1 feels generous; like others too hard to call the overall victor. Precedent doesn't help much. 2010 GE debates were even after Clegg won the first, but the Clegg/Farage debates swung more firmly to Farage in the second. Not impossible that Salmond will have a big announcement as he needs a gamechangers.
Darling missed many open goals last time, especially on oil: according to Salmond there would be a Norwegian-style oil fund and the oil money would underpin current spending. But you can't have both, can you? But for Salmond's total failure on the currency front Darling, too, may well have looked very unprepared.
On topic, a Salmond "win" would match the pattern of at least the last two US presidential races. The president, who has been busy presidenting generally in a more controlled setting, fails to prepare enough, take his opponent seriously or listen to his advisers properly and gets clobbered the first time around. Then they come back and do better the second time, assisted by the media's desire for a different story to print to the one they printed last time.
Surely the SNP leader will be better prepared than last time?
Good luck with that – but as far as I’m aware, Salmond still has no answers to the currency union question, no post indy business analysis report, no legal advice on joining the EU etc.
Can’t see what prep he can do apart from toning down the ad-hominem and manufacturing fallacious attacks, ie NHS privatisation.
ALEX Salmond is under pressure to secure a clear win in tonight’s TV showdown with Alistair Darling to boost the chances of a Yes victory in the referendum.
The First Minister was widely judged to have come off worse in the first televised debate on August 5, but the second head-to-head clash is seen as a crucial test for both men.
'Absurd' at 3-1 feels generous; like others too hard to call the overall victor. Precedent doesn't help much. 2010 GE debates were even after Clegg won the first, but the Clegg/Farage debates swung more firmly to Farage in the second. Not impossible that Salmond will have a big announcement as he needs a gamechangers.
One thing I have learnt from the Scots' Independence Campaign is this: Scots' can really drag-out the biggest 'Jokes'. Shame it will not unteather them from Westminster, but... hilarious!
OGH: "A problem for the betting is that generally those polled give their verdicts in line with which side they are on"
If you're right Mike and I believe you are, that ~ 15%-20% lead in the polls enjoyed by the NOs gives Darling a terrific head start and makes Ladbrokes' even money odds on him look quite tasty imho, especially if Salmond again engages in "ridiculous" (go on ... say the word one of you!) gimmicks like prancing about in front of his lectern. DYOR
The fourth consecutive thread on Scotland - today's perfectly understandable but after the dreadfully dull ones yesterday it really is getting difficult to engage even from, in my case, very much on the sidelines.
I can't believe that Salmond will be that bad again. It will also be a challenge for Darling to be that good. That is why I am still surprised that the negotiations about a second debate did not "break down".
Although I think Salmond will be more aggressive he has the problem of a series of completely indefensible positions any one of which risks ridicule. My guess is that in recognition of the WW1 memorials he will follow the line of Foch:
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat, situation excellent. I attack.”
Just been speaking to family near Barcelona and there is much hilarity there regarding Salmond's unpreparedness and lack of professionalism.
The Catalan Parliament is certainly driving hard towards a maximum devomax whereby they have more tax-raising powers and in return less money goes to Madrid. AFIK, a separate currency is not the focus at present.
As the BEEB is now using a new satellite with a tighter focus, it is harder now to pick up the BBC transmission there, so I have been asked to record the debate and email it to them.
THE surgeon fronting the Yes campaign on the NHS is today exposed for spreading bogus claims about cancer treatment.
Dr Philippa Whitford has become the public face of the SNP’s campaign to convince voters the NHS is under threat of privatisation.
But medical staff at one of the UK’s top cancer hospitals in Newcastle are furious with her - after she wrongly claimed a privatisation agenda is forcing them to consider cancelling cancer operations.
The furious boss of the hospital yesterday condemned her claims as “codswallop” and “a load of crap”.
“Whatever happens in a referendum, that is up to the people of Scotland, but it is outrageous to mislead the public at large with these kinds of claims.” Yesterday, breast cancer surgeon Dr Whitford, 55, from Ayrshire, admitted she had no proof of her allegations and hadn’t checked them out before making them.
Just been speaking to family near Barcelona and there is much hilarity there regarding Salmond's unpreparedness and lack of professionalism.
The Catalan Parliament is certainly driving hard towards a maximum devomax whereby they have more tax-raising powers and in return less money goes to Madrid. AFIK, a separate currency is not being mentioned at present.
As the BEEB is now using a new satellite with a tighter focus, it is harder now to pick up the BBC transmission there, so I have been asked to record the debate and email it to them.
Ha Ha Ha , joke British Nationalist has numpty family members in Spain who are as thick and stupid and British/Spanish Nationalists as him. They laugh like the donkeys they are.
THE surgeon fronting the Yes campaign on the NHS is today exposed for spreading bogus claims about cancer treatment.
Dr Philippa Whitford has become the public face of the SNP’s campaign to convince voters the NHS is under threat of privatisation.
But medical staff at one of the UK’s top cancer hospitals in Newcastle are furious with her - after she wrongly claimed a privatisation agenda is forcing them to consider cancelling cancer operations.
The furious boss of the hospital yesterday condemned her claims as “codswallop” and “a load of crap”.
“Whatever happens in a referendum, that is up to the people of Scotland, but it is outrageous to mislead the public at large with these kinds of claims.” Yesterday, breast cancer surgeon Dr Whitford, 55, from Ayrshire, admitted she had no proof of her allegations and hadn’t checked them out before making them.
No pies for Scotland , the TORY unionists will ban them if there is a NO vote. Vote NO to ban pies.
Your little helpers in Labour are not so happy in England though, but able to face two ways at the same time. LIARS.
Andy Burnham “If this goes through it will mean that any Clinical Commissioning Group anywhere in England could be [sued] by a US private healthcare company.
“It’s a question of control – the NHS used to be able to plan these things. If it wanted to run a particular service then it could… plan which contracts would go out and which wouldn’t – it doesn’t hold the cards any more.
“There’s no doubt the Health and Social Care Act opens up the NHS to full competition – that was always the hidden agenda in my view and [TTIP] puts the rocket boosters on it.
“If it goes through the genie would be out of the bottle and it would be irreversible. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”
Andy Burnham, Labour Health: "Five more years of NHS privatisation would push the NHS [in rUK]] off the cliff edge”
Ha Ha Ha , joke British Nationalist has numpty family members in Spain who are as thick and stupid and British/Spanish Nationalists as him. They laugh like the donkeys they are.
It will probably be a draw, Salmond will be better prepared, but Darling has shown he is no pushover. However, the expectations game is still bad for Salmond, as favourite anything less than a clear Salmond win is in effect a victory for Darling
F1: early days, but when the Monza markets go up I'll be checking the odds on Williams top scoring. Ricciardo's win at Spa should help to depress the Red Bull price, hopefully increase the odds on Williams (also aided by Massa leaving the handbrake on for the whole race).
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
Should be high ratings though, with an 80%+ turnout in the referendum predicted in all the polls and BBC now showing it across the UK on BBC2 in rUK (unlike STV with the first debate) could get one of highest ratings for a political event in years
Yesterday Scotland, today Scotland, and after the debate, tomorrow Scotland. Is there no end to the threads on Scotland?
I suggest that the next Thursdays thread should be about Snails, because the way this blog is trending we'll have nothing but Scotland for the rest of the month; and at least with certain species of snail, we can cook them.
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
Peer groups and parents have far more influence in shaping opinion than teachers do. Many British Jihadists will have attended secular schools.
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
Peer groups and parents have far more influence in shaping opinion than teachers do. Many British Jihadists will have attended secular schools.
Probably true but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm not sure secular schools are doing a great job either. Just teaching kids to pass exams not thinking critically. The national curriculum should make clear that schools must treat religion as mythical not historically accurate. Are we prepared to do that?
If Alex Salmond can steer clear of facts he will do well I think. Facts and the First Minister just don't get on, as has been shown time and time again in this endless campaign. As a lawyer facts are Alastair Darling's strong suit and he should win on points. Mr Salmond ended the last debate with an effective emotional case for independence, while Mr Darling failed to articulate any case for the Union. By then nobody was paying attention.
And that I think is the problem with the NO campaign generally. Their arguments are a lot sounder, a lot more defensible than the assertions of the other side, but they seem unable to knit it all together into a narrative that hits home. I am pretty sure that a large part of the YES vote would switch their choices if they realised the immediate consequences of change. While we don't know the long term, which may be positive, we can be sure of the short term, which will be extremely negative. It's not easy to vote for years of high unemployment and severely restricted public services in the hope that things might be better later on, particularly when the situation is reasonably good for most Scot right now.
And yet the YES team can still witter on about austerity under the Union....
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
Peer groups and parents have far more influence in shaping opinion than teachers do. Many British Jihadists will have attended secular schools.
Probably true but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm not sure secular schools are doing a great job either. Just teaching kids to pass exams not thinking critically. The national curriculum should make clear that schools must treat religion as mythical not historically accurate. Are we prepared to do that?
You think (e.g.) Jesus never existed? Many historians would disagree.
I realise Malc’s going on holiday (to lick his wounds?) after Sept 18th, but what on earth is he going to do when he comes back? The Indyref will be all over and either there’ll be some serious detailed debate going on, which won’t be gamble-friendly, or we’ll just be getting warmed up for the next election, in May.
I realise Malc’s going on holiday (to lick his wounds?) after Sept 18th, but what on earth is he going to do when he comes back? The Indyref will be all over and either there’ll be some serious detailed debate going on, which won’t be gamble-friendly, or we’ll just be getting warmed up for the next election, in May.
Mr. F, if we don't provide a sense of British identity then, by definition, people will seek some other idea as the basis for identity.
This is the whole problem, and why it is impossible now to solve it.
It's not a case of "teaching" an identity to newcomers to any country, that has never and will never work. You only allow in the amount that will have a chance to assimilate naturally. That means tight controls, which we dismissed long long ago.
Imagine a birthday party with 50 family and friends invited.
If you allowed in two people off the street who knew no one else in the room, they would make small talk with the other guests at first and eventually make new friends rather than just talk to each other all night.
If you then allowed in 20 people who knew each other and no one else at the party, those 20 would have no need to try and integrate with the other 52 guests. Why would they? They have 19 mates there already
I realise Malc’s going on holiday (to lick his wounds?) after Sept 18th, but what on earth is he going to do when he comes back? The Indyref will be all over and either there’ll be some serious detailed debate going on, which won’t be gamble-friendly, or we’ll just be getting warmed up for the next election, in May.
Then, we will all talk about UKIP and - will it, won't it - until the the very eve of May 2015. #malcolmg will then become like everyone else; either for or against.
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
Peer groups and parents have far more influence in shaping opinion than teachers do. Many British Jihadists will have attended secular schools.
Probably true but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm not sure secular schools are doing a great job either. Just teaching kids to pass exams not thinking critically. The national curriculum should make clear that schools must treat religion as mythical not historically accurate. Are we prepared to do that?
Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha were all historical figures.
I think that a good education system would encourage people to think critically about religion, as about anything else.
I hope we get one-on-ones like this in GE2015 between Dave and Ed.This is the best format to test intellectual self-confidence,which is why the Evens on Darling is the bet.Salmond is suffering primarily from the lack of swingback in the Tory camp.He needed swingback to have swungback by now.Salmond knows as an old racing tipster everyone goes through a dry spell.
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
Peer groups and parents have far more influence in shaping opinion than teachers do. Many British Jihadists will have attended secular schools.
Probably true but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm not sure secular schools are doing a great job either. Just teaching kids to pass exams not thinking critically. The national curriculum should make clear that schools must treat religion as mythical not historically accurate. Are we prepared to do that?
Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha were all historical figures.
I think that a good education system would encourage people to think critically about religion, as about anything else.
I wouldn’t have thought a faith school would have taught anyone to think critically about their particular faith. Someone elses, yes!
Let's face facts, neither of them are political heavyweights, it's the equivalent of watching women's rugby, they play to the same rules, just in front of small crowds and not very well.
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
Peer groups and parents have far more influence in shaping opinion than teachers do. Many British Jihadists will have attended secular schools.
Probably true but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm not sure secular schools are doing a great job either. Just teaching kids to pass exams not thinking critically. The national curriculum should make clear that schools must treat religion as mythical not historically accurate. Are we prepared to do that?
You think (e.g.) Jesus never existed? Many historians would disagree.
Read Tacitus and Pliny the younger, both of whom make reference to Jesus...
We can't control numbers now. Well, we can, but those already here and already here and we can't get rid of them.
I do wonder if Blair will go down as the worst PM of the 20th century. He can match Eden's Suez, he may end up having lost us Scotland, the immigration splurge has caused untold difficulty regarding integration and provision of services, the pensions system was wrecked, we had a boom which included a deficit and then the worst recession in history.
Rightwingers won't defend him and lefties loathe him as well. And yet he won three elections including two landslides.
OGH: "A problem for the betting is that generally those polled give their verdicts in line with which side they are on"
If you're right Mike and I believe you are, that ~ 15%-20% lead in the polls enjoyed by the NOs gives Darling a terrific head start and makes Ladbrokes' even money odds on him look quite tasty imho, especially if Salmond again engages in "ridiculous" (go on ... say the word one of you!) gimmicks like prancing about in front of his lectern. DYOR
The evens does look big.Salmond's arrogance also puts off women particularly.
Let's face facts, neither of them are political heavyweights, it's the equivalent of watching women's rugby, they play to the same rules, just in front of small crowds and not very well.
You should have watched the Women's World cup final. The Canadian kicker was amazing throughout the tournament, and as for speed wow!! Women can kick a hell of a lot better than they used to and the skills on show are much improved.
We can't control numbers now. Well, we can, but those already here and already here and we can't get rid of them.
I do wonder if Blair will go down as the worst PM of the 20th century. He can match Eden's Suez, he may end up having lost us Scotland, the immigration splurge has caused untold difficulty regarding integration and provision of services, the pensions system was wrecked, we had a boom which included a deficit and then the worst recession in history.
Rightwingers won't defend him and lefties loathe him as well. And yet he won three elections including two landslides.
The worst PM together with the worst Chancellor of the 20th century, it will take this country decades to fully recover.
With the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, it would be a bit awkward for State Schoos to teach that all religion is mythical! It is also an assertion that successive census's have found that people disagree with. There is a huge difference between the vast majority of religious belief of all shades and the lunatic fundementalists who with to use their religion to subjugate others to their beliefs, both religious and political.
Rightwingers won't defend [Blair] and lefties loathe him as well. And yet he won three elections including two landslides.
It is rather amusing, in a way. Obviously the impact of his time in office would not be apparent in all areas right away, so it's reasonable that there would be further assessment of his overall effectiveness as a PM as time passes, but I think you are right that significant numbers will paint him as the worst PM, and stress how clearly that is the case, making the public's view to back him so much seem inexplicable. I recall being told once that revisionists sometimes explain away the early and common historical explanations for events so well, without providing appropriate re-explanation, that they seem to unintentionally suggest there is no way the events themselves could have happened. I can see a similar situation with Blair, where it becomes accepted he was terrible and every sensible person knew it.
However, the mere fact of his electoral success being so apparent will ensure his reputation will be revived frequently I suspect
Let's face facts, neither of them are political heavyweights, it's the equivalent of watching women's rugby, they play to the same rules, just in front of small crowds and not very well.
You should have watched the Women's World cup final. The Canadian kicker was amazing throughout the tournament, and as for speed wow!! Women can kick a hell of a lot better than they used to and the skills on show are much improved.
Still well below the standards of their professional counterparts who perform on a much bigger stage, my comparison stands.
How many Christians would be happy with their son marrying a Muslim. Come to that it’s only 50 years ago that my father (nominally anyway Christian) had seven kinds of fit when my sister married a Catholic.
If Alex Salmond can steer clear of facts he will do well I think. Facts and the First Minister just don't get on, as has been shown time and time again in this endless campaign. As a lawyer facts are Alastair Darling's strong suit and he should win on points. Mr Salmond ended the last debate with an effective emotional case for independence, while Mr Darling failed to articulate any case for the Union. By then nobody was paying attention.
And that I think is the problem with the NO campaign generally. Their arguments are a lot sounder, a lot more defensible than the assertions of the other side, but they seem unable to knit it all together into a narrative that hits home. I am pretty sure that a large part of the YES vote would switch their choices if they realised the immediate consequences of change. While we don't know the long term, which may be positive, we can be sure of the short term, which will be extremely negative. It's not easy to vote for years of high unemployment and severely restricted public services in the hope that things might be better later on, particularly when the situation is reasonably good for most Scot right now.
And yet the YES team can still witter on about austerity under the Union....
Putting all its fibs and dodgy claims to one side, the fundamental appeal of the Yes side is that it offers a chance to break away from the Westminster system and the political elites that control it. The dissatisfaction felt in Scotland is mirrored elsewhere in the UK, but the Scots have been offered the opportunity to do something about it. If, as I expect, they take it can you really blame them? Practically speaking, the chances are they'll find out that the SNP is just like any other political party and is prepared to say and offer anything in order to win, but the fact is that whatever the coming hardships an iScotland is a chance to start again. I will bitterly regret the break-up of the union. But when it happens it will be down to a political elite that for its own interests has failed utterly to engage with the British people for far too long. Politics should be for grown-ups. In the UK, though, it's mainly for 40 year-old students. Yes is Scotland's chance to say No to that. And the rest of us may also benefit as a result because rUK is also going to need a new constitutional settlement of its own.
We can't control numbers now. Well, we can, but those already here and already here and we can't get rid of them.
I do wonder if Blair will go down as the worst PM of the 20th century. He can match Eden's Suez, he may end up having lost us Scotland, the immigration splurge has caused untold difficulty regarding integration and provision of services, the pensions system was wrecked, we had a boom which included a deficit and then the worst recession in history.
Rightwingers won't defend him and lefties loathe him as well. And yet he won three elections including two landslides.
Blair got lucky. He was a PM for good times, not hard times. I can think of very little that's positive to say about the man.
Let's face facts, neither of them are political heavyweights, it's the equivalent of watching women's rugby, they play to the same rules, just in front of small crowds and not very well.
You should have watched the Women's World cup final. The Canadian kicker was amazing throughout the tournament, and as for speed wow!! Women can kick a hell of a lot better than they used to and the skills on show are much improved.
Still well below the standards of their professional counterparts who perform on a much bigger stage, my comparison stands.
I would challenge that. Women can never compete physically, but it doesn't mean it isn't a decent spectacle. Crowds are less but it doesn't mean that the standard is poor... because it isn't at the top level...., lower down its fairly dire but top level is very watchable IMHO
Let's face facts, neither of them are political heavyweights, it's the equivalent of watching women's rugby, they play to the same rules, just in front of small crowds and not very well.
You should have watched the Women's World cup final. The Canadian kicker was amazing throughout the tournament, and as for speed wow!! Women can kick a hell of a lot better than they used to and the skills on show are much improved.
Still well below the standards of their professional counterparts who perform on a much bigger stage, my comparison stands.
I would challenge that. Women can never compete physically, but it doesn't mean it isn't a decent spectacle. Crowds are less but it doesn't mean that the standard is poor... because it isn't at the top level...., lower down its fairly dire but top level is very watchable IMHO
If Alex Salmond can steer clear of facts he will do well I think. Facts and the First Minister just don't get on, as has been shown time and time again in this endless campaign. As a lawyer facts are Alastair Darling's strong suit and he should win on points. Mr Salmond ended the last debate with an effective emotional case for independence, while Mr Darling failed to articulate any case for the Union. By then nobody was paying attention.
And that I think is the problem with the NO campaign generally. Their arguments are a lot sounder, a lot more defensible than the assertions of the other side, but they seem unable to knit it all together into a narrative that hits home. I am pretty sure that a large part of the YES vote would switch their choices if they realised the immediate consequences of change. While we don't know the long term, which may be positive, we can be sure of the short term, which will be extremely negative. It's not easy to vote for years of high unemployment and severely restricted public services in the hope that things might be better later on, particularly when the situation is reasonably good for most Scot right now.
And yet the YES team can still witter on about austerity under the Union....
All NO can do is say it is absolute crap but it is better to accept crap than to hope you can improve things, don't take any risks just accept crap is as good as it gets. NO guarantees more cuts and poverty in the short and long term, your thinking seems to be a bit mixed up.
Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha were all historical figures.
I think that a good education system would encourage people to think critically about religion, as about anything else.
I agree. Critical thinking, the ability to look at the facts and to reason from them is almost the hallmark of a good education. However, that is a facility that is really about secondary education and how many children go to faith schools after the age of 11? A very small minority I would suggest and most of those will be RC. The premise that faith schools lead to brain washing is a bit thin.
Moreover, in terms of young British people being turned to extremist paths that lead to terrorism and murder, what are we talking about? Baptists? Methodists? The Plymouth Brethren? Buddhists? Papists? The Church of England? So actually closing down schools such as Ampleforth or Worth would not make a ha'penny worth of difference. There isn't a problem with faith schools. There is a problem with some people who profess one version of one faith.
THE surgeon fronting the Yes campaign on the NHS is today exposed for spreading bogus claims about cancer treatment.
Dr Philippa Whitford has become the public face of the SNP’s campaign to convince voters the NHS is under threat of privatisation.
But medical staff at one of the UK’s top cancer hospitals in Newcastle are furious with her - after she wrongly claimed a privatisation agenda is forcing them to consider cancelling cancer operations.
The furious boss of the hospital yesterday condemned her claims as “codswallop” and “a load of crap”.
“Whatever happens in a referendum, that is up to the people of Scotland, but it is outrageous to mislead the public at large with these kinds of claims.” Yesterday, breast cancer surgeon Dr Whitford, 55, from Ayrshire, admitted she had no proof of her allegations and hadn’t checked them out before making them.
No pies for Scotland , the TORY unionists will ban them if there is a NO vote. Vote NO to ban pies.
Your little helpers in Labour are not so happy in England though, but able to face two ways at the same time. LIARS.
Andy Burnham “If this goes through it will mean that any Clinical Commissioning Group anywhere in England could be [sued] by a US private healthcare company.
“It’s a question of control – the NHS used to be able to plan these things. If it wanted to run a particular service then it could… plan which contracts would go out and which wouldn’t – it doesn’t hold the cards any more.
“There’s no doubt the Health and Social Care Act opens up the NHS to full competition – that was always the hidden agenda in my view and [TTIP] puts the rocket boosters on it.
“If it goes through the genie would be out of the bottle and it would be irreversible. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”
Andy Burnham, Labour Health: "Five more years of NHS privatisation would push the NHS [in rUK]] off the cliff edge”
The NHS is an even bigger issue in England where we've gone a long way down,70% down, the sell-off route.The NHS marketisation agenda of the neo-liberals,sold under the guise of "reform" by Blair,Milburn and those wanting to make a quick killing from public subsidy like Branson,has had its day.Darling needs to show that tonight and admit Labour got it wrong.
We can't control numbers now. Well, we can, but those already here and already here and we can't get rid of them.
I do wonder if Blair will go down as the worst PM of the 20th century. He can match Eden's Suez, he may end up having lost us Scotland, the immigration splurge has caused untold difficulty regarding integration and provision of services, the pensions system was wrecked, we had a boom which included a deficit and then the worst recession in history.
Rightwingers won't defend him and lefties loathe him as well. And yet he won three elections including two landslides.
Lost us Scotland!! Is it a colony? If Scotland breaks up the union it's because in 2014 Scots decided it is no longer fit for purpose.
How many Christians would be happy with their son marrying a Muslim. Come to that it’s only 50 years ago that my father (nominally anyway Christian) had seven kinds of fit when my sister married a Catholic.
There was no problem amongst my religious (some very religious) brethren when I married a Turk, albeit an atheist one (a fact they did not know at first).
Likewise, as far as I'm aware there was no problem amongst Mrs J's scattered religious Islamic family at the fact she married a nominally-Christian Englishman.
Perhaps our families were not typical, or perhaps things are very different in Pakistan ...
Mr. F, if we don't provide a sense of British identity then, by definition, people will seek some other idea as the basis for identity.
MD, what is this British identity. Most people in Scotland see themselves as Scottish and I am sure it will be similar in the other countries. I have no clue what British identity is, apart from the famed stiff upper lip which is long gone and Empires which is the same.
Putting all its fibs and dodgy claims to one side, the fundamental appeal of the Yes side is that it offers a chance to break away from the Westminster system and the political elites that control it. The dissatisfaction felt in Scotland is mirrored elsewhere in the UK, but the Scots have been offered the opportunity to do something about it. If, as I expect, they take it can you really blame them? Practically speaking, the chances are they'll find out that the SNP is just like any other political party and is prepared to say and offer anything in order to win, but the fact is that whatever the coming hardships an iScotland is a chance to start again. I will bitterly regret the break-up of the union. But when it happens it will be down to a political elite that for its own interests have failed utterly to engage with the British people for far too long. Politics should be for grown-ups. In the UK, though, it's mainly for 40 year-old students. Yes is Scotland's chance to say No to that. And the rest of us may also benefit as a result because rUK is also going to need a new constitutional settlement.
Although I would prefer to rework our constitutional settlement within the framework of cUK, the need for that settlement whatever the result is becoming increasingly apparent I think, and you hit to the heart of the matter on the fundamental appeal of the Yes side and why I still think they will win this one. If I were uncertain and, like most people, dissatisfied in some ill-defined way with our political system, what harm would there be in taking an optimistic risk that the new order would be properly different? Of course there could be a greater deal of harm in reality, and if the potential economic harm is severe enough perhaps that will swing things, but that is a disputed issue, and the complexities and potential pitfalls for iScotland in any independence negotiations are for wonks to worry about.
Yes and No are both trying to have a simple and emotionally resonate pitch to voters, as if they can get that to work the facts and claims on detail by both sides are less important even if they are clearly favouring one side over the other. I still think Yes has the easier job when it comes to making that pitch it seems, so I can only hope the difficult reality of any move to independence mobilizes the natural conservatives of voters who dislike change even when they are not enamoured of the current system.
THE surgeon fronting the Yes campaign on the NHS is today exposed for spreading bogus claims about cancer treatment.
Dr Philippa Whitford has become the public face of the SNP’s campaign to convince voters the NHS is under threat of privatisation.
But medical staff at one of the UK’s top cancer hospitals in Newcastle are furious with her - after she wrongly claimed a privatisation agenda is forcing them to consider cancelling cancer operations.
The furious boss of the hospital yesterday condemned her claims as “codswallop” and “a load of crap”.
“Whatever happens in a referendum, that is up to the people of Scotland, but it is outrageous to mislead the public at large with these kinds of claims.” Yesterday, breast cancer surgeon Dr Whitford, 55, from Ayrshire, admitted she had no proof of her allegations and hadn’t checked them out before making them.
No pies for Scotland , the TORY unionists will ban them if there is a NO vote. Vote NO to ban pies.
Your little helpers in Labour are not so happy in England though, but able to face two ways at the same time. LIARS.
Andy Burnham “If this goes through it will mean that any Clinical Commissioning Group anywhere in England could be [sued] by a US private healthcare company.
“It’s a question of control – the NHS used to be able to plan these things. If it wanted to run a particular service then it could… plan which contracts would go out and which wouldn’t – it doesn’t hold the cards any more.
“There’s no doubt the Health and Social Care Act opens up the NHS to full competition – that was always the hidden agenda in my view and [TTIP] puts the rocket boosters on it.
“If it goes through the genie would be out of the bottle and it would be irreversible. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”
Andy Burnham, Labour Health: "Five more years of NHS privatisation would push the NHS [in rUK]] off the cliff edge”
The NHS is an even bigger issue in England where we've gone a long way down,70% down, the sell-off route.The NHS marketisation agenda of the neo-liberals,sold under the guise of "reform" by Blair,Milburn and those wanting to make a quick killing from public subsidy like Branson,has had its day.Darling needs to show that tonight and admit Labour got it wrong.
Fat chance , Darling is in the Tories pockets , just like Labour. They paint a different picture in Scotland, he will just lie as normal. He is good at it and it is the Labour way in Scotland. He is looking to further feather his own nest and desperate for a knighthood, any old lie will suffice for a man without morals or principles.
Is Malcolm about to be "outed" as a piedoughphile?
LOL, there should be freedom to eat pies if that is what you want , as long as you do not do it every day. How crap would football be if no pies and bovril. These food Nazis should be sent home to think again.
King Cole, honour killings tend not to be done by Christians.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit.
MD, you off to iron those union jack underpants
I don't know about MD, but I was deeply upset that this year I appear to have lost my union jack swimming trunk, in a year such as this and all. Brings a tear to the eye, I know.
@malcolmg Decent pies yes, but banning those "fat and saltpeter" budget ones would not worry me. (I get terrible indigestion from them)
I agree, Killie pies are pretty good. Cheap ones are awful and to be avoided totally. Should only be occasionally though , not a daily habit. For me very very occasionally nowadays.
How many Christians would be happy with their son marrying a Muslim. Come to that it’s only 50 years ago that my father (nominally anyway Christian) had seven kinds of fit when my sister married a Catholic.
There was no problem amongst my religious (some very religious) brethren when I married a Turk, albeit an atheist one (a fact they did not know at first).
Likewise, as far as I'm aware there was no problem amongst Mrs J's scattered religious Islamic family at the fact she married a nominally-Christian Englishman.
Perhaps our families were not typical, or perhaps things are very different in Pakistan ...
Marrying "outside" can be difficult for some families, and not just for religion. My wife's family have been Royal Navy (including Royal Marines) through and through, going way back into the nineteenth century. When she first took me home to meet her father he took one look at my moustache and concluded that I was a Bootneck. It was probably the most difficult interview of my life, trying to explain to him that I was army and all my family were as well. Fortunately the RN has no tradition of honour killings.
Putting all its fibs and dodgy claims to one side, the fundamental appeal of the Yes side is that it offers a chance to break away from the Westminster system and the political elites that control it. ...
From a Scottish perspective I have to disagree. The SNP is the political elite in Scotland, which is rapidly becoming something of a one party State - a trend that would only be accelerated if we choose independence. Regardless of personal views of their policies, governance in Scotland is ill-served by the feebleness of the Labour Party. We need the dominant party to be challenged, including the various independence nonsenses.
Independence is essentially a political project. It has little to do with cultural identity or economic realities. I suspect most Scots don't care a lot about the politics and would be happy for Westminster to keep its role if it means we keep our jobs and don't have to pay for hospital treatments etc, as they do in Ireland.
So the YES team present independence as a no cost non-choice. In my estimation support for independence is shallow outside the committed core. However, a shallow YES vote is as good as a committed YES vote and there may be enough of them to get over the line.
Only two Muslim nations out of nearly 40 countries polled have a majority comfortable with their daughter marrying a Christian.
Interesting link, thanks, with vastly more info. Some is counter-intuitive, e.g. only 23% of Iraqis consider Shia-Sunni rivalry to be a major problem (this predates recent events - the survey was mostly done 2011-12). The majority everywhere favour freedom of others to follow other faiths and there are big majorities against suicide bombing, even in places like Iraq. On the other hand, opinion in very much divided on things like women always following their husband's instructions (though more support for leaving to women how they dress - e.g. 70% in Pakistan agree). In general, a lot of the attitudes seem to reflect wider local culture - e.g. in Azerbaijan the Muslims are distinctly more westernised than in Afghanistan. Worth a read.
Mr. F, if we don't provide a sense of British identity then, by definition, people will seek some other idea as the basis for identity.
MD, what is this British identity. Most people in Scotland see themselves as Scottish and I am sure it will be similar in the other countries.
It may be, in these less British times, that the British identity is nothing more than seeing oneself as English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish first and then sharing in the deeper heritage and culture of the rest of the Home nations as well, rather than nationalists in all four who feel no such connection. Is that enough to save the Union? I suspect it isn't. But however one defines it, there is still such a thing as shared British identity even if it has become less important to many people and outright hated by others. It would be absurd as me suggesting, because I wish the Union to exist, that what is this English identity, I don't understand this idea. It's absurd; even if one does not share that view, even if a majority does not share it anymore, it is not hard to understand what those who do mean by it.
Is Malcolm about to be "outed" as a piedoughphile?
LOL, there should be freedom to eat pies if that is what you want , as long as you do not do it every day. How crap would football be if no pies and bovril. These food Nazis should be sent home to think again.
Mr. F, if we don't provide a sense of British identity then, by definition, people will seek some other idea as the basis for identity.
MD, what is this British identity. Most people in Scotland see themselves as Scottish and I am sure it will be similar in the other countries.
It may be, in these less British times, that the British identity is nothing more than seeing oneself as English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish first and then sharing in the deeper heritage and culture of the rest of the Home nations as well, rather than nationalists in all four who feel no such connection. Is that enough to save the Union? I suspect it isn't. But however one defines it, there is still such a thing as shared British identity even if it has become less important to many people and outright hated by others. It would be absurd as me suggesting, because I wish the Union to exist, that what is this English identity, I don't understand this idea. It's absurd; even if one does not share that view, even if a majority does not share it anymore, it is not hard to understand what those who do mean by it.
I would truly like to know what British identity is, yet to see it explained though. It appears to be just some cliche used by politicians.
Hmmmm, you parading in Edinburgh in September then, posting between polishing your flute. You are that kind of EDL.
As an English Roman-Catholic and proud supporter of Scots' independence; no. I have no vote and - frankly - better-rid!
:comprehension-not-on-Scots-curriculum:
why use of "fenians" then , many if not most will count themselves as Scots or Scots -Irish at worst. they are fully integrated in Scotland now and not that many British supporters that hate them left nowadays, most prejudice is gone.
Comments
Ta'
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/belgium-post-race-analysis.html
Meanwhile, I see that François Hollande is continuing to give us a master-class in what a Miliband government would be like.
DYOR.
Good luck with that – but as far as I’m aware, Salmond still has no answers to the currency union question, no post indy business analysis report, no legal advice on joining the EU etc.
Can’t see what prep he can do apart from toning down the ad-hominem and manufacturing fallacious attacks, ie NHS privatisation.
ALEX Salmond is under pressure to secure a clear win in tonight’s TV showdown with Alistair Darling to boost the chances of a Yes victory in the referendum.
The First Minister was widely judged to have come off worse in the first televised debate on August 5, but the second head-to-head clash is seen as a crucial test for both men.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-debate-salmond-needs-win-1-3519807
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/scottish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1219044
:off-to-al-beeb-hys:
It will be a test of how well he learns from experience. One assumes he was well-prepared for the first debate, just in the wrong way.
If you're right Mike and I believe you are, that ~ 15%-20% lead in the polls enjoyed by the NOs gives Darling a terrific head start and makes Ladbrokes' even money odds on him look quite tasty imho, especially if Salmond again engages in "ridiculous" (go on ... say the word one of you!) gimmicks like prancing about in front of his lectern.
DYOR
Although I think Salmond will be more aggressive he has the problem of a series of completely indefensible positions any one of which risks ridicule. My guess is that in recognition of the WW1 memorials he will follow the line of Foch:
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat, situation excellent. I attack.”
It shouldn't be dull.
The Catalan Parliament is certainly driving hard towards a maximum devomax whereby they have more tax-raising powers and in return less money goes to Madrid. AFIK, a separate currency is not the focus at present.
As the BEEB is now using a new satellite with a tighter focus, it is harder now to pick up the BBC transmission there, so I have been asked to record the debate and email it to them.
Dr Philippa Whitford has become the public face of the SNP’s campaign to convince voters the NHS is under threat of privatisation.
But medical staff at one of the UK’s top cancer hospitals in Newcastle are furious with her - after she wrongly claimed a privatisation agenda is forcing them to consider cancelling cancer operations.
The furious boss of the hospital yesterday condemned her claims as “codswallop” and “a load of crap”.
“Whatever happens in a referendum, that is up to the people of Scotland, but it is outrageous to mislead the public at large with these kinds of claims.” Yesterday, breast cancer surgeon Dr Whitford, 55, from Ayrshire, admitted she had no proof of her allegations and hadn’t checked them out before making them.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/surgeon-exposed-spreading-bogus-claims-4103150
Some new medical terms there.....
They laugh like the donkeys they are.
Your little helpers in Labour are not so happy in England though, but able to face two ways at the same time. LIARS.
Andy Burnham
“If this goes through it will mean that any Clinical Commissioning Group anywhere in England could be [sued] by a US private healthcare company.
“It’s a question of control – the NHS used to be able to plan these things. If it wanted to run a particular service then it could… plan which contracts would go out and which wouldn’t – it doesn’t hold the cards any more.
“There’s no doubt the Health and Social Care Act opens up the NHS to full competition – that was always the hidden agenda in my view and [TTIP] puts the rocket boosters on it.
“If it goes through the genie would be out of the bottle and it would be irreversible. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”
Andy Burnham, Labour Health: "Five more years of NHS privatisation would push the NHS [in rUK]] off the cliff edge”
:nuff-zed:
http://fantasticalreads.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/featured-author-thaddeus-white/
F1: early days, but when the Monza markets go up I'll be checking the odds on Williams top scoring. Ricciardo's win at Spa should help to depress the Red Bull price, hopefully increase the odds on Williams (also aided by Massa leaving the handbrake on for the whole race).
I see Boris has piped up in the extremism debate. It's not enough in my view to talk about dealing with extremist preachers, those who preach 'hate' and so on. I saw a recent video on youtube with a young lady in Luton challenging Anjem Choudary who was in his usual fashion claiming that unbelievers will all burn in hell for eternity. The young lady responded by saying that wasn't that all hateful and nasty and unpleasant. Fair enough but it rather missed the point to my mind. Because what he was saying was truly ridiculous. There is no evidence to support what he was saying so it should have been dismissed as irrelevant. And yet we don't seem to have the courage or inclination to do that.
Let me go further. Many of the people that Choudary and others wish to radicalise will have spent at least 11 years in compulsory, expensive state education in this country. Why won't that have inoculated them against the absurdities they preach? Ultimately because our education system is not fit for purpose or if it is then it pulls its' punches too often when dealing with religion. A system that allows religious doctrine to be taught as fact is not good enough. Just because something was written in a religious book it doesn't make it historically accurate. Any education system that was serious about 'rigour' (notice how politicians love that word) would make that plain. Yet we allow a great many of our schools to be faith based. Not all these schools will indoctrinate children but some of them do. Are we going to do anything about this? Are we ever going to put reason and rationality at the heart of the syllabus or will we just continue to think that all that matters is kids being able to read write and count properly so they can help promote economic growth in the future. Unenlightened people who go and fight wars of jihad are often the products of an unenlightened culture. It's time we switched the lights back on.
@Scrapheap_as_was,My Condolences.
Is there no end to the threads on Scotland?
I suggest that the next Thursdays thread should be about Snails, because the way this blog is trending we'll have nothing but Scotland for the rest of the month; and at least with certain species of snail, we can cook them.
And that I think is the problem with the NO campaign generally. Their arguments are a lot sounder, a lot more defensible than the assertions of the other side, but they seem unable to knit it all together into a narrative that hits home. I am pretty sure that a large part of the YES vote would switch their choices if they realised the immediate consequences of change. While we don't know the long term, which may be positive, we can be sure of the short term, which will be extremely negative. It's not easy to vote for years of high unemployment and severely restricted public services in the hope that things might be better later on, particularly when the situation is reasonably good for most Scot right now.
And yet the YES team can still witter on about austerity under the Union....
It's not a case of "teaching" an identity to newcomers to any country, that has never and will never work. You only allow in the amount that will have a chance to assimilate naturally. That means tight controls, which we dismissed long long ago.
Imagine a birthday party with 50 family and friends invited.
If you allowed in two people off the street who knew no one else in the room, they would make small talk with the other guests at first and eventually make new friends rather than just talk to each other all night.
If you then allowed in 20 people who knew each other and no one else at the party, those 20 would have no need to try and integrate with the other 52 guests. Why would they? They have 19 mates there already
#malcolmg will then become like everyone else; either for or against.
I think that a good education system would encourage people to think critically about religion, as about anything else.
I do wonder if Blair will go down as the worst PM of the 20th century. He can match Eden's Suez, he may end up having lost us Scotland, the immigration splurge has caused untold difficulty regarding integration and provision of services, the pensions system was wrecked, we had a boom which included a deficit and then the worst recession in history.
Rightwingers won't defend him and lefties loathe him as well. And yet he won three elections including two landslides.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scottish-independence-referendum-salmond-described-as-arrogant-ambitious-and-dishonest-by-scottish-women-9671833.html
Women can kick a hell of a lot better than they used to and the skills on show are much improved.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
Only two Muslim nations out of nearly 40 countries polled have a majority comfortable with their daughter marrying a Christian.
However, the mere fact of his electoral success being so apparent will ensure his reputation will be revived frequently I suspect
I'm not sure winning the debate will be that important.
Darling won the last debate and the majority of pollsters have seen No's lead cut.
NO guarantees more cuts and poverty in the short and long term, your thinking seems to be a bit mixed up.
Moreover, in terms of young British people being turned to extremist paths that lead to terrorism and murder, what are we talking about? Baptists? Methodists? The Plymouth Brethren? Buddhists? Papists? The Church of England? So actually closing down schools such as Ampleforth or Worth would not make a ha'penny worth of difference. There isn't a problem with faith schools. There is a problem with some people who profess one version of one faith.
I believe in the 70s it was high as 80 per cent.
http://news.sky.com/story/1023609/mixed-marriage-more-accepted-in-britain
Likewise, as far as I'm aware there was no problem amongst Mrs J's scattered religious Islamic family at the fact she married a nominally-Christian Englishman.
Perhaps our families were not typical, or perhaps things are very different in Pakistan ...
Anyway, I'm off for a bit.
Yes and No are both trying to have a simple and emotionally resonate pitch to voters, as if they can get that to work the facts and claims on detail by both sides are less important even if they are clearly favouring one side over the other. I still think Yes has the easier job when it comes to making that pitch it seems, so I can only hope the difficult reality of any move to independence mobilizes the natural conservatives of voters who dislike change even when they are not enamoured of the current system.
Decent pies yes, but banning those "fat and saltpeter" budget ones would not worry me. (I get terrible indigestion from them)
The Bell, the Bell; it's ringing! Get rid off [Ian] Bell!
:tumbleweed:
:muppet-watch:
Independence is essentially a political project. It has little to do with cultural identity or economic realities. I suspect most Scots don't care a lot about the politics and would be happy for Westminster to keep its role if it means we keep our jobs and don't have to pay for hospital treatments etc, as they do in Ireland.
So the YES team present independence as a no cost non-choice. In my estimation support for independence is shallow outside the committed core. However, a shallow YES vote is as good as a committed YES vote and there may be enough of them to get over the line.
:comprehension-not-on-Scots-curriculum: