I have always considered myself British first and foremost, with my Englishness more akin to a particularity of Britishness. For me, most of the great things about this country were developed post-1707 (such as mass democracy, the great inventions of the industrial revolution, abolitionism etc) and thus more attached to Britishness rather than Englishness or Scottishness etc. It's thus a prouder identity.
Sadly, most of our population is lacking in historical knowledge so isn't aware of this stuff.
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.
Albania stood out as being a highly moderate nation. Unfortunately their economic problems stop them being a beacon to others.
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
I've always thought British identity a fairly enlightened concept as it's one shared between different peoples. I've never had any difficulty in being Welsh and British and don't really get the idea of what I am 'primarily'. I'm just both. However if I'm ever asked for my nationality I will always say British, as for all political purposes that is the nation I belong to and I don't think of nationality as anything more than a political construct.
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.
If there was no such thing as British identity the SNP would not have promised Scots they would keep the BBC after independence.
Identity is very personal, of course, but in my experience there are far more points of reference between the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English than there are with other nationalities, though Kiwis and Aussies come a reasonably close second.
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.
This is not just an issue for Scotland.Labour must get exemptions on TTIP,a key issue in the marginals in GE2015.Darling needs to mount a strong case for the whole Uk and show real leadership.
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
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.
This is not just an issue for Scotland.Labour must get exemptions on TTIP,a key issue in the marginals in GE2015.Darling needs to mount a strong case for the whole Uk and show real leadership.
Pete, No hope , Darling would sell his granny, if left to Westminster the NHS in all UK countries will be gone. We at least have a chance to save it in Scotland.
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.
Hm! HL.
Reading between the lines of your posts it would appear (domestically at least) that the Royal Navy (the senior service) doth outrank the Army?
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.
If there was no such thing as British identity the SNP would not have promised Scots they would keep the BBC after independence.
Identity is very personal, of course, but in my experience there are far more points of reference between the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English than there are with other nationalities, though Kiwis and Aussies come a reasonably close second.
SO , they said we would still be able to get the BBC , they will not keep it in its current London centric form. We will have a Scottish broadcaster that may tie in with the BBC as Ireland does. Ireland gets for £21M what we pay £330 million for at present. We are being short changed.
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
yeah everybody else in the UK does that too. Apart from a bit of regional dress ( and other regions have theirs ) it's not actually that different.
Francois Hollande appears to blame bing the uk for ISIS
Hollande is in desperate straits. Ignore.
The more interesting thing for me is how the implosion of the French government affects things in Europe. Germany is suddenly staring at a bunch of angry and broke southerners, with its only free market supporter and financial backer Britain heading swiftly for the exit.
Cameron said Germany would regret going against Britain to appoint Juncker. He is right.
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, I would also add that we still want what I count as the the old British values here, ie welfare and NHS to be fair. They are disappearing from UK but are still revered here in Scotland, fairness in society should be a prerequisite.
OldKingCole No. Though the vast majority of patterns are recent. The "original" ones would have started off as a pattern favoured by the local weavers, and coloured with dyes that were locally available.
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.
Showing your age Malcolm....
Those aged 14-17 are much less likely to have a strong sense of Scottish identity than those aged 18-24. Just 12% of 14-17-year-olds described themselves as 'Scottish, not British', compared to 35% of 18-24-year-olds and 23% of adults as a whole. Forty-five per cent say they are equally Scottish and British, far above the 22% of 18-24-year-olds or 30% of all adults.
Though from a completely selfish point of view I'd probably prefer Scotland became independent-passport restrictions could keep Scottish drunks out of Soho during week ends-from a political viewpoint I'd prefer they stayed in the union.
That a nationalist movement could hold sway so close to the heart of Europe is mega-unattractive (all nationalist movements are chauvinist and therefore ugly ).
There is nothing I like less than Farage and his band of 'little Englanders' and I fear Salmond and his 'little Scottlanders' wont be any different
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
I am theoretically a Scot in that I could play for a Scottish team but my heritage like many living in Scotland is Viking. So what am I proud of. Well the flag is not nearly as good as the Union Jack. Our history is pretty gory and messed up although beating the Romans 2,000 years ago was impressive (note the Scots hadn't turned up in Scotland then). Our football team is and will always be second tier. Our rugby team I enthusiastically support. Our Scottish Government was OK but has been distracted by the referendum for far too long.
Britain has an army to be proud of, some really good sports teams (I was watching the swimming at the weekend), a passport that still means something (although some of our muslim immigrants are trying to destroy this), a stable democracy, a reputation for honesty, a history on a global scale and as noted before an iconic flag.
Why would I want to ditch the British bit and only keep the Scottish part? I could explain this to people like Malcolm every day but it will not get through to them. They are zealots on a mission.
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.
Albania stood out as being a highly moderate nation. Unfortunately their economic problems stop them being a beacon to others.
50% of Albania's GDP comes from cannabis currently supporting a criminal market-place.There's a good case for legal regulation to bring in much-needed taxation and remove the criminal gangs who deal in drugs and people.Prohibition only benefits the mafia and these growers will always grow.
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.
If there was no such thing as British identity the SNP would not have promised Scots they would keep the BBC after independence.
Identity is very personal, of course, but in my experience there are far more points of reference between the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English than there are with other nationalities, though Kiwis and Aussies come a reasonably close second.
SO , they said we would still be able to get the BBC , they will not keep it in its current London centric form. We will have a Scottish broadcaster that may tie in with the BBC as Ireland does. Ireland gets for £21M what we pay £330 million for at present. We are being short changed.
The BBC is no longer the London-centric institution that you claim. All the major TV production ops, sport and 5Live were moved to Salford two years ago.
I feel much more English than British, I'd put it at about 99/1
Personally I believe it would help integration of immigrants if they considered themselves English, Welsh, or Scottish rather than British, as British seems to be an umbrella which shelters all different kinds of sub sections rather than a rather more cohesive definition of identity.
Thats probably because I don't feel particularly British I guess
But to be serious, for once he is utterly correct, for the reasons given passim. And Lord Dannatt, as usual, is wrong.
(And yes, that includes when he was advising Cameron before the 2010 GE. He's an army man who does not hesitate to stick the knife in the other services, which has been a long-standing problem in the military).
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
There is no doubting that Scots are famed throughout the world for their open-handed generosity. It's a commonplace.
So much for BenM hoping that France would move away from austerity. François Hollande had just fired his government for speaking out against German sponsored austerity and Manuel Valls has been ordered to form a new Cabinet who will follow the austerity doctrine laid out by Germany.
@MonikerDiCanio That depends on your definition of "generosity", and there in lies a possible difference between the more northern people of this Island and those of the south.
On tonights debate very hard to see beyond a fairly comfortable Salmond given expectations are so low. Not that I think that that will really make a difference.
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
Wasn't clan tartan a 19thC invention?
Not quite , plaid was worn long long ago. It was brought back and made popular by Sir Walter Scott.
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
There is no doubting that Scots are famed throughout the world for their open-handed generosity. It's a commonplace.
As in... "You'll have had your tea then, Hamish" ;-)
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
yeah everybody else in the UK does that too. Apart from a bit of regional dress ( and other regions have theirs ) it's not actually that different.
Alan, you will see my other post. The view we get from here is harass the poor and needy and further enrich the rich. The UK does not look like a nice place , almost the most unequal country in the world, not something to aspire to and not going to change in the near future. Therefore we would be far better trying to attempt to keep it going ourselves. People seem happy to keep voting in rapacious , useless governments who only help themselves and their chums. We can at least try to have something different.
The BBC is certainly still very London centric. As is all of our press. It just isn't as bad as it was before.
London based radio presenters presuming the entire UK is experiencing the same weather as London are particularly irksome. Especially when its nicer down there.
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
How is the winner of the debate to be determined? Are we getting another of these "instant" polls tonight? If so does anyone know who is doing it and when the results are likely to be available?
I expect a lot more personal attacks on Darling tonight from Salmond. We had a bit the last time having a go at his record as Chancellor but I expect a lot more tonight. A bit like the Scottish football team before Strachan, there will be a serious attempt to kick his opponent off the park.
Not sure how this will play in the instant polling but voters keep telling us they don't like this kind of thing (and then being influenced by it in their voting otherwise politicians around the world would not keep on doing it).
My guess is that Darling will edge it but it will be closer than the last one.
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.
Perhaps while your at it you could tell us what the scottish one, you like pretty much like the rest of us to me.
Alan, beautiful countryside, great history , tartan , fair mindedness , gallus attitude , generosity , cheerfulness , passion , struggle against adversity , etc etc
Wasn't clan tartan a 19thC invention?
Not quite , plaid was worn long long ago. It was brought back and made popular by Sir Walter Scott.
It wasn't traditionally clan-specific though, was it? Prior to Sir W.
I'm no fan of Cameron, but with France going t8ts up, you've got to admire his timing here.
Ah the wicked EU, preventing British employers demanding people work a 50 hour week. Presumably the repeal of the right of British workers to 28 days holiday will be in the next or next-but-one Tory manifesto, as well.
@OldKingCole It would have become clan specific, in that the local chieftain would probably have all his men at arms dressed in the pattern of his local favourite weaver, and then become the "families" by association. Possibly also true in pre Roman times, but with far simpler patterns.
Ah the wicked EU, preventing British employers demanding people work a 50 hour week.
I'm not arguing about the merits or demerits of the EU per se. Its the politics that is interesting to me.
The politics of Europe appear to be swinging quickly in David Cameron's favour. With France on its knees, it will be much easier for the EU's other main contributor to hold Germany over a barrel.
And that, of course, will have implications here, too, with regard to UKIP.
I'm no fan of Cameron, but with France going t8ts up, you've got to admire his timing here.
He was never going to say, "the negotiations failed, but I still support in". He was always going to say "the negotiations were a huge triumph so I support in", or if he had a lot more political capital than he has now, "the negotiations were inconclusive, so we need to delay the referendum" or relatedly "the negotiations haven't made enough progress so we'll have a Mandate Referendum instead to show the rest of the EU how cross we are then negotiate some more".
Ah the wicked EU, preventing British employers demanding people work a 50 hour week.
I'm not arguing about the merits or demerits of the EU per se. Its the politics that is interesting to me.
The politics of Europe appear to be swinging quickly in David Cameron's favour. With France on its knees, it will be much easier for the EU's other main contributor to hold Germany over a barrel.
And that, of course, will have implications here, too, with regard to UKIP.
There's no barrel. Per head the net UK contribution isn't that big. There's enough to be worth having, but not enough to get dicked around over.
Carwyn Jones has made his his most forceful intervention yet into the debate on Scottish independence – insisting he would veto any attempt to set up a currency union after a Yes vote.
The First Minister said Scotland “cannot expect to share in the institutions of the Union” if it chooses to leave the UK in the poll next month and that he would “firmly” say no to any currency proposal.
Mr Jones re-entered the debate after months of rows over whether a UK Government would strike a deal over a currency union in the event of a Yes vote, with the leadership of all three main parties at Westminster saying they wouldn’t enter a union with an independent Scotland.
The Welsh First Minister's intervention builds on a speech he made in Edinburgh last year in which he issued a passionate plea for Scotland 'not to forget its Welsh friends' as independence poll looms
@OldKingCole It would have become clan specific, in that the local chieftain would probably have all his men at arms dressed in the pattern of his local favourite weaver, and then become the "families" by association. Possibly also true in pre Roman times, but with far simpler patterns.
In the Middle Ages, were not plaids mostly worn by the Highlanders and the Lowlanders tended to wear more Norman based dress (and arms, armour horses etc.)?
Business confidence has been falling sharply for the last 4 months and the last quarter was negative. We won't have confirmation for a few months yet but the auguries are not good.
Of course a shallow recession with German levels of employment is a rather different proposition to what Club Med are going through. Merkel's hands are largely tied by the grand coalition. I think she will struggle to provide much to Cameron (even if she was so minded) whilst that remains the case.
''I think she will struggle to provide much to Cameron (even if she was so minded) whilst that remains the case. ''
Cam can be much more hopeful than that. Even Germany's socialists don't want to be in a club where the other main members are militant, unstable and broke.
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.
Hm! HL.
Reading between the lines of your posts it would appear (domestically at least) that the Royal Navy (the senior service) doth outrank the Army?
Afraid so, Mr. F.. There never was any real chance of my boy becoming a soldier when he had grown up in a family that, with the exception of his Dad, called toilets, "The Heads" along with many other linguistic oddities. I have even fallen into it myself; a night out has long been a "run ashore". I don't mind, when you marry into a foreign tribe you have to adapt to their ways.
Opposition figures have demanded the Welsh Government scraps its fleet of ministerial cars – after it was revealed it had cost more than £400,000 since the last election.
The Welsh Conservatives said ministers should follow Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb, who ditched the Wales Office’s Jaguar days after being appointed to replace David Jones last month.
Figures revealed in a written answer from the government revealed costs of buying, maintaining and running the fleet of 10 chauffeur-driven Volvo S80 saloons had soared by more than 50% in the past year to nearly £175,000......
The costs of running the Welsh Cabinet cars could be even higher, with chauffeur salaries costing the taxpayer more than £276,000 in 2012-2013, in figures revealed earlier this year.
“At a time when many families have faced a squeeze on their disposable income, it is poor judgement that Labour’s spending on chauffeur-driven cars has risen by 50%. It is astonishing hypocrisy that Labour Ministers will stand up in the Assembly Chamber and preach about sustainable public transport, then travel home in their gas-guzzling, taxpayer-funded executive cars.
“Carwyn Jones and his Labour colleagues have their priorities completely wrong, spending nearly half a million pounds every year on luxury travel, but won’t commit a few million pounds for a Cancer Treatments Fund to end the postcode lottery in access to cancer medicines. If Labour ministers can’t bring costs down, they should either take public transport or drive themselves to work commitments like everyone else.”
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
By the time of the parliamentary vote it was too late. Earlier intervention in support of other anti-Assad groups would have prevented the growth of ISIS in Syria.
It was exactly the same back in 1937-8 when Spanish republicans were infitrated by Communists and therefore became less-and-less attractive an option, even when intervention back in 1936 would have been in support of moderates.
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.
If there was no such thing as British identity the SNP would not have promised Scots they would keep the BBC after independence.
Identity is very personal, of course, but in my experience there are far more points of reference between the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English than there are with other nationalities, though Kiwis and Aussies come a reasonably close second.
SO , they said we would still be able to get the BBC , they will not keep it in its current London centric form. We will have a Scottish broadcaster that may tie in with the BBC as Ireland does. Ireland gets for £21M what we pay £330 million for at present. We are being short changed.
The BBC is no longer the London-centric institution that you claim. All the major TV production ops, sport and 5Live were moved to Salford two years ago.
And thus has become an even more hideously White institution than before, despite the numbers of Black people in this country increasing. That's what a move away from London means.
Remind me, how many BME MPs do the LibDems have at present?
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
I think the argument is that intervention at that point might have allowed the Free Syrian Army to remain a player. They have been largely superseded now by ISIL and it is suggested this is a consequence of our failure to act.
Personally, I am really not sure. IIRC it was apparently supporters of the FSA that beheaded that priest, pretty much at the time that Hague was pushing the policy. I wonder how much all of that played in his decision to stand down as FS.
We are really struggling to find some nice people to support in this mess. Delusions about our capacity to make an actual difference and our endless ability to moralise about the failures of others have added to the debacle.
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
By the time of the parliamentary vote it was too late. Earlier intervention in support of other anti-Assad groups would have prevented the growth of ISIS in Syria.
It was exactly the same back in 1937-8 when Spanish republicans were infitrated by Communists and therefore became less-and-less attractive an option, even when intervention back in 1936 would have been in support of moderates.
Absolute poppycock.
I've always had contempt for these 'faster, sooner, bigger' arguments.
The idea that undermining central authority is good for minorities hasn't proven true in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq and, now, Syria.
He that does not learn from recent history is liable to make a complete fool of himself on PB.
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
Indeed! Sir William Wallace was Guardian of Scotland during the early part of the Wars of Independance and was knighted, some say by Robert the Bruce. A great historical novel of the Wallace was written by Nigel Tranter and is (as are his other works) a great read. In many ways it foreshadows today's debate!
Several French Ministers have objected to the fiscal rules imposed on France by the EU Euro area (effectively Germany). As a result the President has dissolved the Cabinet and asked the PM to form a new one without the dissenters.
This is a consequence of France sharing the euro currency with Germany and others. A shared currency in a monetary union means having a political union on economic matters. So a strong Germany is imposing its economic policy on France.
If Scotland were to be independent and managed somehow to have monetary union with sterling, then as the much smaller partner it would have to submit to the will of rUK on economic matters in the way France now has to obey Germany.
Mr. L, indeed. It does seem the potential allies on offer in Syria are mostly total bastards who we would normally wish nothing but woe upon, and would now, had ISIS not raised the bar for barbarous insanity to a new level.
@DavidBrackenbury That is why he was hung drawn and quartered (traitors death). He had sworn fealty to "Toom Tabard" who had sworn fealty to Edward. If he had fought having renounced that oath, he might have escaped that punishment, and only been beheaded.
This is just weird. I'd heard of the PSN issues, but apparently the online services of Xbox and PlayStation have been attacked... by Jihadists: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28925052
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
There are more groups than just ISIL(S)/IL against Assad. The secular FSA was particularly strong this time last year. This (seemingly purposeful) confusion has done a heck of a lot of damage and led to the deaths of many people over there.
Assad used chemical weapons, and is still using chemical weapons. We will reap the consequences if we partner with him, or help him in any way.
On another note: are you claiming Farage is only interested in helping Christians?
@DavidBrackenbury That is why he was hung drawn and quartered (traitors death). He had sworn fealty to "Toom Tabard" who had sworn fealty to Edward. If he had fought having renounced that oath, he might have escaped that punishment, and only been beheaded.
I doubt it Smarmeron, Robert the Bruce's brothers, who paid no fealty to John Bailiol were executed in a similar fashion. King Edward of England never forgave Wallace after Stirling Bridge and treated him as outlaw. While a minor member of the landed gentry, it is clear that William Wallace was a cultured and educated man in an era when many nobles could not read or write. A shame for Edward, England and Sir John de Menteith of Scotland, who handed him over...
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Right, ISIS would've been stopped by....us joining the Syrian civil war on ISIS's side.
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
Indeed! Sir William Wallace was Guardian of Scotland during the early part of the Wars of Independance and was knighted, some say by Robert the Bruce. A great historical novel of the Wallace was written by Nigel Tranter and is (as are his other works) a great read. In many ways it foreshadows today's debate!
Saw a great documentary about Bannockburn on Youtube yesterday (called Line of Fire). The Jockanese definitely deservd to win that one. And I learned that Bruce personally sunk his battleaxe into the brain of an English knight who was charging him on a horse. Cool man.
Also reinforced the truth that Edward I was an all-round superstar of a king - militarily, diplomatically, in many ways. Not AT ALL the white cat stroking evil genius of Mel Gibson's imagination. Ed II was however a useless drip of a man and got his deserved comeuppance at Bruce's hands. Graham Norton in a chain mail dress.
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.
A number of people are picking up the Hollande / Milliband nexus.
Mr. Patrick, bit frightfully modern for me, but wasn't Edward III generally super as well?
The model of great first, rubbish second and greater still third matches very nicely Babur, Humayun and Akbar the Great, the first three (of six) 'great' Moghal emperors (although Humayun was utterly dreadful).
Mr. L, indeed. It does seem the potential allies on offer in Syria are mostly total bastards who we would normally wish nothing but woe upon, and would now, had ISIS not raised the bar for barbarous insanity to a new level.
Its like a lucky dip where every sweet is liquorice.
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
I think the argument is that intervention at that point might have allowed the Free Syrian Army to remain a player. They have been largely superseded now by ISIL and it is suggested this is a consequence of our failure to act.
Personally, I am really not sure. IIRC it was apparently supporters of the FSA that beheaded that priest, pretty much at the time that Hague was pushing the policy. I wonder how much all of that played in his decision to stand down as FS.
We are really struggling to find some nice people to support in this mess. Delusions about our capacity to make an actual difference and our endless ability to moralise about the failures of others have added to the debacle.
I've never understood that argument at all. Firstly, weren't ISIS already near the forefront of the Syrian opposition a year ago? And secondly, even if they weren't, when there's a power vacuum in such a turbulent situation, the pendulum almost ALWAYS swings to the extremists on one side or the other, because desperate civilians caught up in the turmoil see them as atleast being strong enough to get stuff done.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Right, ISIS would've been stopped by....us joining the Syrian civil war on ISIS's side.
Lol - don't shoot the messenger - Hollande was Miliband's bff. Anyway intervention against Assad would not have meant on the side if ISIS.
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
I think the argument is that intervention at that point might have allowed the Free Syrian Army to remain a player. They have been largely superseded now by ISIL and it is suggested this is a consequence of our failure to act.
Personally, I am really not sure. IIRC it was apparently supporters of the FSA that beheaded that priest, pretty much at the time that Hague was pushing the policy. I wonder how much all of that played in his decision to stand down as FS.
We are really struggling to find some nice people to support in this mess. Delusions about our capacity to make an actual difference and our endless ability to moralise about the failures of others have added to the debacle.
I've never understood that argument at all. Firstly, weren't ISIS already near the forefront of the Syrian opposition a year ago? And secondly, even if they weren't, when there's a power vacuum in such a turbulent situation, the pendulum almost ALWAYS swings to the extremists on one side or the other, because desperate civilians caught up in the turmoil see them as atleast being strong enough to get stuff done.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster.
I share a lot of your reservations. As I have said it smacks of wishing the world is as we would want it to be rather than how it is.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
I wonder what the consequences on the vote would be if Darling pitches up tonight with a battleaxe and cleaves Eck's skull in half? Good for YES or for NO?
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
As for Bannockburn, well, its not the heats the count, only the final.
Anyway, was not Robert the Bruce's younger brother, Edward, that great freedom loving bloke who went off and tried to make himself king of Ireland?
I've never understood that argument at all. Firstly, weren't ISIS already near the forefront of the Syrian opposition a year ago? And secondly, even if they weren't, when there's a power vacuum in such a turbulent situation, the pendulum almost ALWAYS swings to the extremists on one side or the other, because desperate civilians caught up in the turmoil see them as atleast being strong enough to get stuff done.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster.
1) This time last year, the FSA controlled large parts of Syria, including the outskirts of Damascus. The dual attacks on them by the Syrian regime, ISIS, Al-Nusra and others have reversed that. From all accounts, the FSA is now in serious trouble.
2)
"It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster."
I see no reason to believe that would have been the case. ISIS's rise was incredibly fast as it was - from October last year to harassing much of Iraq this Spring. The time to stamp pout their cancer was last year or earlier.
There is not, and never has been, a 'right' side to support in Syria/Iraq. The 'best' of the bunch would have been the FSA. Sadly it is too late for that now, and we are going to be forced to arm the Kurds, their satellites and the PKK.
"In June 1987, the PKK slaughtered the entire population of Pinarcik, a Kurdish village unsympathetic to its cause, in order to coerce nearby villages into submission." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pınarcık_massacre
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
As for Bannockburn, well, its not the heats the count, only the final.
Anyway, was not Robert the Bruce's younger brother, Edward, that great freedom loving bloke who went off and tried to make himself king of Ireland?
He was, but the state of Ireland at the time made Scotland look like a bastion of unity and harmony. Edward came to a sticky end as nearly did Robert the Bruce who fought in Ireland. If Robert had left strong successors, all may have been well, but the factional disputes in Scotland continued after his death for generations.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
As for Bannockburn, well, its not the heats the count, only the final.
Anyway, was not Robert the Bruce's younger brother, Edward, that great freedom loving bloke who went off and tried to make himself king of Ireland?
... but the factional disputes in Scotland continued after his death for generations.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
A secret weapon indeed! Still kept against the day in a cave in Ayrshire. But this is between us...
"Francois Hollande appears to blame the uk for ISIS"
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
Lol - according to Hollande it was the failure to intervene last year in Syria which has allowed ISIL to flourish. Remind us which party leader voted against intervention in Syria?
Hold on.
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
I think the argument is that intervention at that point might have allowed the Free Syrian Army to remain a player. They have been largely superseded now by ISIL and it is suggested this is a consequence of our failure to act.
Personally, I am really not sure. IIRC it was apparently supporters of the FSA that beheaded that priest, pretty much at the time that Hague was pushing the policy. I wonder how much all of that played in his decision to stand down as FS.
We are really struggling to find some nice people to support in this mess. Delusions about our capacity to make an actual difference and our endless ability to moralise about the failures of others have added to the debacle.
I've never understood that argument at all. Firstly, weren't ISIS already near the forefront of the Syrian opposition a year ago? And secondly, even if they weren't, when there's a power vacuum in such a turbulent situation, the pendulum almost ALWAYS swings to the extremists on one side or the other, because desperate civilians caught up in the turmoil see them as atleast being strong enough to get stuff done.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster.
Your argument is illogical. It is precisely because of the lack of an intervention that there has become this power vacuum as the Syrian government and the FSA got stuck in a stalemate and ISIS have arisen in this context.
If we'd intervened then it is possible, just possible not guaranteed, that the FSA could have succeeded and so there would not have become this vacuum that pushed the extremists into power. It is the lack of a successful push in any direction that has created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish, a counterfactual where a decisive action by the FSA might not have seen ISIS arise because the turmoil could have ended sooner without them being required.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
I wonder what the consequences on the vote would be if Darling pitches up tonight with a battleaxe and cleaves Eck's skull in half? Good for YES or for NO?
Darling looks as if he could swing an axe fairly well, but Salmond has slimmed down a lot so may put up a good defence.
It is a fairly big hall so plenty of space to wield weapons. Salmond may do well with a pike, it evens things up quite weĺl with a taller opponent.
It would all be more interesting than the usual dialog of the deaf.
Now, time to think of buzz word bingo. I am a little tempted by "deep fried Mars bar" but being the beeb they may have to say "other deep fried confectionaries are available...
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
A secret weapon indeed! Still kept against the day in a cave in Ayrshire. But this is between us...
I recall being taken to a cave in cliff over a river near Dumfries or Moffat over which there was a castle that had belonged to a family retainer (with the same name as me). Apparently there was once a tunnel from the castle to this cave and Robert the Bruce had allegedly hidden there when on the run and made his acquaintance with the spider.
It was my father that took me nearly 40 years ago and I have never been able to identify the castle again.
I wonder what the consequences on the vote would be if Darling pitches up tonight with a battleaxe and cleaves Eck's skull in half? Good for YES or for NO?
Darling looks as if he could swing an axe fairly well, but Salmond has slimmed down a lot so may put up a good defence.
It is a fairly big hall so plenty of space to wield weapons. Salmond may do well with a pike, it evens things up quite weĺl with a taller opponent.
It would all be more interesting than the usual dialog of the deaf.
Now, time to think of buzz word bingo. I am a little tempted by "deep fried Mars bar" but being the beeb they may have to say "other deep fried confectionaries are available...
Maybe each side should appoint a champion and they fight it out and the one left alive wins! I'd watch. The whole Sindy bandwagon is getting very very stale. The poor people of Scotland must be fed up to the back teeth with it all.
Is it not a coincidence that we are discussing a) The complexities and shifting alliances of 13 & 14 C Scottish/English relationships, with their associated brutalities, on one hand and b) The complexities and shifting alliances of 21st C Syrian/Muslim relationships, with their associated brutalities, on the other!
Is it not a coincidence that we are discussing a) The complexities and shifting alliances of 13 & 14 C Scottish/English relationships, with their associated brutalities, on one hand and b) The complexities and shifting alliances of 21st C Syrian/Muslim relationships, with their associated brutalities, on the other!
So there may be peaceful banter (and occasional trolling) on Syrian PB in 2800 AD?
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
A secret weapon indeed! Still kept against the day in a cave in Ayrshire. But this is between us...
I recall being taken to a cave in cliff over a river near Dumfries or Moffat over which there was a castle that had belonged to a family retainer (with the same name as me). Apparently there was once a tunnel from the castle to this cave and Robert the Bruce had allegedly hidden there when on the run and made his acquaintance with the spider.
It was my father that took me nearly 40 years ago and I have never been able to identify the castle again.
I do not have any serious knowledge here, but the Crags of Doon might be able to assist?
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
A secret weapon indeed! Still kept against the day in a cave in Ayrshire. But this is between us...
I recall being taken to a cave in cliff over a river near Dumfries or Moffat over which there was a castle that had belonged to a family retainer (with the same name as me). Apparently there was once a tunnel from the castle to this cave and Robert the Bruce had allegedly hidden there when on the run and made his acquaintance with the spider.
It was my father that took me nearly 40 years ago and I have never been able to identify the castle again.
Comments
I have always considered myself British first and foremost, with my Englishness more akin to a particularity of Britishness. For me, most of the great things about this country were developed post-1707 (such as mass democracy, the great inventions of the industrial revolution, abolitionism etc) and thus more attached to Britishness rather than Englishness or Scottishness etc. It's thus a prouder identity.
Sadly, most of our population is lacking in historical knowledge so isn't aware of this stuff.
Identity is very personal, of course, but in my experience there are far more points of reference between the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English than there are with other nationalities, though Kiwis and Aussies come a reasonably close second.
Some new medical terms there.....
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.
This is not just an issue for Scotland.Labour must get exemptions on TTIP,a key issue in the marginals in GE2015.Darling needs to mount a strong case for the whole Uk and show real leadership.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/voters-want-nhs-exempt-us-trade-pact-ttip-eu-privatisation
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/502305/Francois-Hollande-UK-to-blame-for-jihadi
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.
This is not just an issue for Scotland.Labour must get exemptions on TTIP,a key issue in the marginals in GE2015.Darling needs to mount a strong case for the whole Uk and show real leadership.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/voters-want-nhs-exempt-us-trade-pact-ttip-eu-privatisation
Pete, No hope , Darling would sell his granny, if left to Westminster the NHS in all UK countries will be gone. We at least have a chance to save it in Scotland.
Reading between the lines of your posts it would appear (domestically at least) that the Royal Navy (the senior service) doth outrank the Army?
Hollande is in desperate straits. Ignore.
The more interesting thing for me is how the implosion of the French government affects things in Europe. Germany is suddenly staring at a bunch of angry and broke southerners, with its only free market supporter and financial backer Britain heading swiftly for the exit.
Cameron said Germany would regret going against Britain to appoint Juncker. He is right.
Alan, I would also add that we still want what I count as the the old British values here, ie welfare and NHS to be fair. They are disappearing from UK but are still revered here in Scotland, fairness in society should be a prerequisite.
No. Though the vast majority of patterns are recent. The "original" ones would have started off as a pattern favoured by the local weavers, and coloured with dyes that were locally available.
Those aged 14-17 are much less likely to have a strong sense of Scottish identity than those aged 18-24. Just 12% of 14-17-year-olds described themselves as 'Scottish, not British', compared to 35% of 18-24-year-olds and 23% of adults as a whole. Forty-five per cent say they are equally Scottish and British, far above the 22% of 18-24-year-olds or 30% of all adults.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/08/21/why-are-young-scottish-people-more-comfortable-being-british
That a nationalist movement could hold sway so close to the heart of Europe is mega-unattractive (all nationalist movements are chauvinist and therefore ugly ).
There is nothing I like less than Farage and his band of 'little Englanders' and I fear Salmond and his 'little Scottlanders' wont be any different
I am theoretically a Scot in that I could play for a Scottish team but my heritage like many living in Scotland is Viking. So what am I proud of. Well the flag is not nearly as good as the Union Jack. Our history is pretty gory and messed up although beating the Romans 2,000 years ago was impressive (note the Scots hadn't turned up in Scotland then). Our football team is and will always be second tier. Our rugby team I enthusiastically support. Our Scottish Government was OK but has been distracted by the referendum for far too long.
Britain has an army to be proud of, some really good sports teams (I was watching the swimming at the weekend), a passport that still means something (although some of our muslim immigrants are trying to destroy this), a stable democracy, a reputation for honesty, a history on a global scale and as noted before an iconic flag.
Why would I want to ditch the British bit and only keep the Scottish part? I could explain this to people like Malcolm every day but it will not get through to them. They are zealots on a mission.
http://www.channel4.com/news/albania-europe-lazarat-secret-marijuana-mountain
Personally I believe it would help integration of immigrants if they considered themselves English, Welsh, or Scottish rather than British, as British seems to be an umbrella which shelters all different kinds of sub sections rather than a rather more cohesive definition of identity.
Thats probably because I don't feel particularly British I guess
But to be serious, for once he is utterly correct, for the reasons given passim. And Lord Dannatt, as usual, is wrong.
(And yes, that includes when he was advising Cameron before the 2010 GE. He's an army man who does not hesitate to stick the knife in the other services, which has been a long-standing problem in the military).
That depends on your definition of "generosity", and there in lies a possible difference between the more northern people of this Island and those of the south.
Which in company with the US they are.
Without the Iraq invasion and the US/UK unstinting support for Israel I've no doubt most of the problems in the Middle East wouldn't exist.
The BBC is certainly still very London centric. As is all of our press. It just isn't as bad as it was before.
Yes needs an absolute blow out by Darling.
People seem happy to keep voting in rapacious , useless governments who only help themselves and their chums. We can at least try to have something different.
Andrew Marr's programme the other night about Burns and Scott was quite interesting. Two very different Scottish minds
In ruins, presumably.
Payback time, Angela.
I'm no fan of Cameron, but with France going t8ts up, you've got to admire his timing here.
I expect a lot more personal attacks on Darling tonight from Salmond. We had a bit the last time having a go at his record as Chancellor but I expect a lot more tonight. A bit like the Scottish football team before Strachan, there will be a serious attempt to kick his opponent off the park.
Not sure how this will play in the instant polling but voters keep telling us they don't like this kind of thing (and then being influenced by it in their voting otherwise politicians around the world would not keep on doing it).
My guess is that Darling will edge it but it will be closer than the last one.
As in, you are more likely to starve in the company of the well off, than you are in the company of the poor.
It would have become clan specific, in that the local chieftain would probably have all his men at arms dressed in the pattern of his local favourite weaver, and then become the "families" by association.
Possibly also true in pre Roman times, but with far simpler patterns.
I'm not arguing about the merits or demerits of the EU per se. Its the politics that is interesting to me.
The politics of Europe appear to be swinging quickly in David Cameron's favour. With France on its knees, it will be much easier for the EU's other main contributor to hold Germany over a barrel.
And that, of course, will have implications here, too, with regard to UKIP.
The First Minister said Scotland “cannot expect to share in the institutions of the Union” if it chooses to leave the UK in the poll next month and that he would “firmly” say no to any currency proposal.
Mr Jones re-entered the debate after months of rows over whether a UK Government would strike a deal over a currency union in the event of a Yes vote, with the leadership of all three main parties at Westminster saying they wouldn’t enter a union with an independent Scotland.
The Welsh First Minister's intervention builds on a speech he made in Edinburgh last year in which he issued a passionate plea for Scotland 'not to forget its Welsh friends' as independence poll looms
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/scotland-independence-referendum-carwyn-jones-7666920
Business confidence has been falling sharply for the last 4 months and the last quarter was negative. We won't have confirmation for a few months yet but the auguries are not good.
Of course a shallow recession with German levels of employment is a rather different proposition to what Club Med are going through. Merkel's hands are largely tied by the grand coalition. I think she will struggle to provide much to Cameron (even if she was so minded) whilst that remains the case.
Cam can be much more hopeful than that. Even Germany's socialists don't want to be in a club where the other main members are militant, unstable and broke.
The Welsh Conservatives said ministers should follow Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb, who ditched the Wales Office’s Jaguar days after being appointed to replace David Jones last month.
Figures revealed in a written answer from the government revealed costs of buying, maintaining and running the fleet of 10 chauffeur-driven Volvo S80 saloons had soared by more than 50% in the past year to nearly £175,000......
The costs of running the Welsh Cabinet cars could be even higher, with chauffeur salaries costing the taxpayer more than £276,000 in 2012-2013, in figures revealed earlier this year.
“At a time when many families have faced a squeeze on their disposable income, it is poor judgement that Labour’s spending on chauffeur-driven cars has risen by 50%. It is astonishing hypocrisy that Labour Ministers will stand up in the Assembly Chamber and preach about sustainable public transport, then travel home in their gas-guzzling, taxpayer-funded executive cars.
“Carwyn Jones and his Labour colleagues have their priorities completely wrong, spending nearly half a million pounds every year on luxury travel, but won’t commit a few million pounds for a Cancer Treatments Fund to end the postcode lottery in access to cancer medicines. If Labour ministers can’t bring costs down, they should either take public transport or drive themselves to work commitments like everyone else.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/should-welsh-ministers-ditch-chauffeur-driven-7665022
Weren't we going to intervene on the same side as Isis i.e. against Assad?
Nigel Farage was against the intervention, incidentally, precisely to support Christians in the area.
Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
It was exactly the same back in 1937-8 when Spanish republicans were infitrated by Communists and therefore became less-and-less attractive an option, even when intervention back in 1936 would have been in support of moderates.
Remind me, how many BME MPs do the LibDems have at present?
Personally, I am really not sure. IIRC it was apparently supporters of the FSA that beheaded that priest, pretty much at the time that Hague was pushing the policy. I wonder how much all of that played in his decision to stand down as FS.
We are really struggling to find some nice people to support in this mess. Delusions about our capacity to make an actual difference and our endless ability to moralise about the failures of others have added to the debacle.
I've always had contempt for these 'faster, sooner, bigger' arguments.
The idea that undermining central authority is good for minorities hasn't proven true in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq and, now, Syria.
He that does not learn from recent history is liable to make a complete fool of himself on PB.
This is a consequence of France sharing the euro currency with Germany and others. A shared currency in a monetary union means having a political union on economic matters. So a strong Germany is imposing its economic policy on France.
If Scotland were to be independent and managed somehow to have monetary union with sterling, then as the much smaller partner it would have to submit to the will of rUK on economic matters in the way France now has to obey Germany.
Mr. L, indeed. It does seem the potential allies on offer in Syria are mostly total bastards who we would normally wish nothing but woe upon, and would now, had ISIS not raised the bar for barbarous insanity to a new level.
That is why he was hung drawn and quartered (traitors death). He had sworn fealty to "Toom Tabard" who had sworn fealty to Edward. If he had fought having renounced that oath, he might have escaped that punishment, and only been beheaded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28925052
Assad used chemical weapons, and is still using chemical weapons. We will reap the consequences if we partner with him, or help him in any way.
On another note: are you claiming Farage is only interested in helping Christians?
Also reinforced the truth that Edward I was an all-round superstar of a king - militarily, diplomatically, in many ways. Not AT ALL the white cat stroking evil genius of Mel Gibson's imagination. Ed II was however a useless drip of a man and got his deserved comeuppance at Bruce's hands. Graham Norton in a chain mail dress.
The model of great first, rubbish second and greater still third matches very nicely Babur, Humayun and Akbar the Great, the first three (of six) 'great' Moghal emperors (although Humayun was utterly dreadful).
It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster.
Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one
Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Look and shudder. It may be our future. The dice are rolling!!!!
Anyway, was not Robert the Bruce's younger brother, Edward, that great freedom loving bloke who went off and tried to make himself king of Ireland?
2) I see no reason to believe that would have been the case. ISIS's rise was incredibly fast as it was - from October last year to harassing much of Iraq this Spring. The time to stamp pout their cancer was last year or earlier.
There is not, and never has been, a 'right' side to support in Syria/Iraq. The 'best' of the bunch would have been the FSA. Sadly it is too late for that now, and we are going to be forced to arm the Kurds, their satellites and the PKK.
An interesting article on the FSA published today, showing how we have let the FSA down:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/syrian-rebels-to-obama-airstrikes-in-syria-will-never-stop-isis.html
And examples of the Kurdish PKK's atrocities:
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-298415-surrendered-terrorist-reveals-pkks-atrocities-against-its-members.html
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/europes-terror-problem-pkk-fronts-inside-the-eu
"In June 1987, the PKK slaughtered the entire population of Pinarcik, a Kurdish village unsympathetic to its cause, in order to coerce nearby villages into submission."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pınarcık_massacre
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
If we'd intervened then it is possible, just possible not guaranteed, that the FSA could have succeeded and so there would not have become this vacuum that pushed the extremists into power. It is the lack of a successful push in any direction that has created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish, a counterfactual where a decisive action by the FSA might not have seen ISIS arise because the turmoil could have ended sooner without them being required.
It is a fairly big hall so plenty of space to wield weapons. Salmond may do well with a pike, it evens things up quite weĺl with a taller opponent.
It would all be more interesting than the usual dialog of the deaf.
Now, time to think of buzz word bingo. I am a little tempted by "deep fried Mars bar" but being the beeb they may have to say "other deep fried confectionaries are available...
It was my father that took me nearly 40 years ago and I have never been able to identify the castle again.
a) The complexities and shifting alliances of 13 & 14 C Scottish/English relationships, with their associated brutalities, on one hand
and
b) The complexities and shifting alliances of 21st C Syrian/Muslim relationships, with their associated brutalities, on the other!
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/bruceandspider/index.asp
http://www.scotlandmag.com/magazine/issue25/12006744.html
Any fit?