The outspoken PB rag, The Sunil on Sunday believes passionately that separation in 1922 was wrong and says the (southern) Irish should be true to their history by rejoining the UK.
PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it
So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K. I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.
Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.
It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says: " Land forces
An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by: a deployable Brigade HQ two light armoured reconnaissance units two light artillery units one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison two communication units one transport unit one logistics unit one medical unit
Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."
So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.
Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?
There doesn't seem much point in having an army if they can never be deployed in any useful number for offensive or non hostile purposes. Why bother?
Ah well, there's another few thousand unemployed. An Independent Scotland will be competing with Ireland as to which has the greatest number of young emigrants.
It restricts Scotland's foreign policy capability absolutely. For example, they might not be able to conduct an emergency evacuation of their citizens from a dangerous environment, respond to natural disasters, or conduct any meaningful humanitarian relief.
Russia may also be able to probe Scotland's sea and air defences almost at will. If a majority of Scots are happy with that, fine, but I wouldn't pretend withdrawing from the world - and hoping the rest of NATO does the heavy lifting if anything serious happens - will make them more safe.
I think the one individual capable of making a difference to this campaign is Billy Connolly. The Big Yin is hugely popular - particularly in Glasgow - and he hates nationalism. However he was so monstered by the nats that he seems to have withdrawn altogether and has pledged not to stick his toe into the festering pit. If I was directing Better Together I'd be on the phone to him right now.
I should say, further to what I wrote below, my hat is off to Jim Murphy. Shown real grit in getting out there day after day. Done more for Better Together than anyone else. Hope a few more start stepping up.
I should say, further to what I wrote below, my hat is off to Jim Murphy. Shown real grit in getting out there day after day. Done more for Better Together than anyone else. Hope a few more start stepping up.
Best of luck.
In purely narrow partisan terms, the Right in rUK could expect to benefit from a Yes vote. But, for me, it would be a very hollow victory indeed if this country tore itself apart.
Nah, it would be a "velvet divorce" like the Czechs and Slovaks.
It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says: " Land forces
An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by: a deployable Brigade HQ two light armoured reconnaissance units two light artillery units one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison two communication units one transport unit one logistics unit one medical unit
Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."
So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.
I tried hard at the time of publication but I could never make that list of units and the number of people available to fill them actually work. However I cut it I ended up with units too small to actually be worthwhile. It can be done but only if your, for example, transport unit consists of one sergeant and a few squaddies.
One needs to factor in training. Soldiering is by its nature a young man's game - you need far more people under 25 than over 25. That is taken care of in a big enough force because most youngsters join up for a limited period (for the fun of it and the adventure not as a long term career) but it does involve a lot of churn and a permanent long-term training commitment. If you force is only 3,500 strong in total there is no capacity to cope with that and in the specialist units not enough people to have a big enough core left to deploy.
You might get a combat brigade of 3,500 people with all those functions but only if you can draw that brigade from a much larger army.
P.S. The idea that one, very, small unit of engineers will contain enough men trained to build bridges do mine clearance and other aspects of combat engineering is laughable.
The outspoken PB rag, The Sunil on Sunday believes passionately that separation in 1922 was wrong and says the (southern) Irish should be true to their history by rejoining the UK.
There are two plausible analogies that can be drawn between contemporary Scottish events and Ireland's departure from the Union. The first is that Ireland left because of British intransigence, and a refusal to grant legitimate political demands within the Union. The second is that every time the British government answered the Irish question, the Irish changed it.
I think the one individual capable of making a difference to this campaign is Billy Connolly. The Big Yin is hugely popular - particularly in Glasgow - and he hates nationalism. However he was so monstered by the nats that he seems to have withdrawn altogether and has pledged not to stick his toe into the festering pit. If I was directing Better Together I'd be on the phone to him right now.
I love this "Geldof dislikes the aggressive tone the debate has taken"
I think the one individual capable of making a difference to this campaign is Billy Connolly. The Big Yin is hugely popular - particularly in Glasgow - and he hates nationalism. However he was so monstered by the nats that he seems to have withdrawn altogether and has pledged not to stick his toe into the festering pit. If I was directing Better Together I'd be on the phone to him right now.
Isn't Billy Connolly fighting a much bigger battle at the moment with Parkinson's?
I think the one individual capable of making a difference to this campaign is Billy Connolly. The Big Yin is hugely popular - particularly in Glasgow - and he hates nationalism. However he was so monstered by the nats that he seems to have withdrawn altogether and has pledged not to stick his toe into the festering pit. If I was directing Better Together I'd be on the phone to him right now.
Isn't Billy Connolly fighting a much bigger battle at the moment with Parkinson's?
PS: Lying for 2 years and getting nowhere so hard to believe 2 weeks will cut it
Presumably he is one of the majority who never bothered to read the white paper. It said:
"This Scottish Government envisages a phased approach to reaching the level of Scottish defence forces set out above. This will be achieved through a staged process involving 7,500 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel at the point of independence, rising to around 10,000 regulars and 3,500 reserves by the end of the five years following independence, subject to consideration in the strategic defence review. The final force levels will provide capacity for Scotland to make enhanced contributions to international partnership operations."
That is 7,500 for the army, navy and airforce put together with any increase subject to a defence review.
If you were incredibly successful in reducing your support and logistic staff you might just manage 3,500 troops. Doubt it, it would be one of the best ratios in the world for troops to support staff but if include all the army support staff you might get close.
And its not like they would be going anywhere.
So in Tory speak , Ruth Davidosn plucks out the 3,500 number from there and makes fantasy claims. The 13.5Kis close to the 15K. I repeat Tories are lying dogs , if their lips move they are lying.
Or alternatively YOU could try reading the White Paper, page 240, it's right there. She was talking about the army, not the overall defense force. The paper says after 5 years it will be up to 4,700 so her point is entirely valid.
It even has the 3,500 figure. The White paper says: "
Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel."
So no lie. Except from Robertson of course.
Given the need for training, rest and recuperation, public ceremonies, recruitment drives and the garrison needs of home defence, how many of those would be 'deployable' at any one time?
Who do you think Scotland will be invading?!
If they are members of NATO, it's conceivable they'll be fighting at some point.
Not at all they could just join the Belgium Tendency within NATO. Its very popular at the moment - don't spend enough to even pretend to meet the NATO agreement but claim all the benefits of membership, even Germany has joined.
The problem will come if someone threatens or even God forbid attacks.
I think the one individual capable of making a difference to this campaign is Billy Connolly. The Big Yin is hugely popular - particularly in Glasgow - and he hates nationalism. However he was so monstered by the nats that he seems to have withdrawn altogether and has pledged not to stick his toe into the festering pit. If I was directing Better Together I'd be on the phone to him right now.
Given what's going on w ISIS, the fact next hostage is Scottish and Connollys "joke" about Ken Bigley he should probably stay out of the spotlight for a while
“That’s the way we do these things here, because ultimately modern civilisation was invented between these two peoples. That’s the f***ing truth. You don’t have the modern economy without Adam Smith. You don’t have the logic of liberty without David Hume and all those people. You just don’t."
Not at all they could just join the Belgium Tendency within NATO. Its very popular at the moment - don't spend enough to even pretend to meet the NATO agreement but claim all the benefits of membership, even Germany has joined.
The problem will come if someone threatens or even God forbid attacks.
David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence
Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.
Cameron or SeanT?
Mr. Charles I think the original author's idea was that Cameron would drink the whiskey and SeantT would then shoot him Maybe I read it wrong and that Sean would drink the Whiskey and then shoot Cameron, or perhaps Cameron would do the drinking and then shoot himself with SeanT standing by as a, thirsty, witness. The key bit is that, even if Sean doesn't do anything, Cameron comes out of the room feet first.
“That’s the way we do these things here, because ultimately modern civilisation was invented between these two peoples. That’s the f***ing truth. You don’t have the modern economy without Adam Smith. You don’t have the logic of liberty without David Hume and all those people. You just don’t."
Not at all they could just join the Belgium Tendency within NATO. Its very popular at the moment - don't spend enough to even pretend to meet the NATO agreement but claim all the benefits of membership, even Germany has joined.
The problem will come if someone threatens or even God forbid attacks.
Not at all they could just join the Belgium Tendency within NATO. Its very popular at the moment - don't spend enough to even pretend to meet the NATO agreement but claim all the benefits of membership, even Germany has joined.
The problem will come if someone threatens or even God forbid attacks.
NATO is basically:
USA | | | France/Britain | | | | | Others
in terms of capability to actually do stuff.
I think you are out by a factor of ten in your scale. We and the Frogs are now a long, long way behind the US not only in terms of capability to do things but also increasingly in terms of kit to operate with them and nobody else even seems to be trying.
Most of the NATO members now seem to working on the principle that their defence is someone else's problem (and I don't exempt the UK from that remark, especially at sea).
Not at all they could just join the Belgium Tendency within NATO. Its very popular at the moment - don't spend enough to even pretend to meet the NATO agreement but claim all the benefits of membership, even Germany has joined.
The problem will come if someone threatens or even God forbid attacks.
NATO is basically:
USA | | | France/Britain | | | | | Others
in terms of capability to actually do stuff.
I think you are out by a factor of ten in your scale. We and the Frogs are now a long, long way behind the US not only in terms of capability to do things but also increasingly in terms of kit to operate with them and nobody else even seems to be trying.
Most of the NATO members now seem to working on the principle that their defence is someone else's problem (and I don't exempt the UK from that remark, especially at sea).
Very much so. The general view seems to be the US will always bail us out.
For anyone wondering about the true potential of oil to support Scotland through its travails (if it votes yes) then this should help clarify things (from John Curtice's What Scotland Thinks site):
I'm not a Scot and not even British. I'm a foreign engineer working in the energy research sector and I have relatives living in Edinburgh and London. I personally don't have an interest in the outcome of this referendum. However as a man of science I do care about the general public getting their facts right.
I'm increasingly concerned by how the Yes campaign is basing a lot of its financial aspiration on the North sea oil resource. The rule of thumb in the energy industry is that you don't listen to politicians or oil businessmen when you want to know how much oil reserves there are left. Either they don't know, they lie to you or tell you a oversimplified answer which has no use in making an informed decision. The estimated amount of barrels available in the north sea is a gross simplification of a complex industrial matter. This tell you nothing if your intention is to forecast how much money you could make at least over the next 3 decades using oil.
People who's job is to know whats happening in the energy industry as a whole knows very well that the oil industry will start to face increasing challenges of obsolescence well before it ever encounter well depletion. The debate is about when these problems start to really affect. The best projection is that it would happen within 15 years. This sounded crazy even to me but I could not run away from the data. When I say obsolescence, I'm not saying that the oil industry is going to keel over in 15 years. What I'm saying is that the technological & business developments in the energy industry would start to seriously disrupt and change the way we use energy in the next 10 years. The fossil fuel consumer today is like the personal computer user of 1995. You're in for a big shock over the next 15 to 20 years. The result of this is that margin on a barrel of oil gets hit very badly and increasingly uneconomical to go for the hardest to reach oil wells.
If your aspiration is to use the north sea oil resource to build and/or shore-up an economy on the successful Norwegian model, you are 40 to 30 years too late.
The post below, by the way, explains why Sir Ian Wood, the billionaire oil magnate, came out recently to trash the SNP's claims about oil prospects. (Not that any of this seems likely to sway anyone's intention to vote Yes up here, of course. Getting their own back on Mrs Thatcher is far too important for that).
Fully agree with that. And the real issue is not how much can economically be extracted by the oil companies. The real issue politically is how much of the overall available cashflow from oil in the North Sea will accrue to governments? This will decline faster than the production.
David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence
Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.
Cameron or SeanT?
Mr. Charles I think the original author's idea was that Cameron would drink the whiskey and SeantT would then shoot him Maybe I read it wrong and that Sean would drink the Whiskey and then shoot Cameron, or perhaps Cameron would do the drinking and then shoot himself with SeanT standing by as a, thirsty, witness. The key bit is that, even if Sean doesn't do anything, Cameron comes out of the room feet first.
Interesting.
I read it as Sean would start harranging Cameron until he decided to 'make it stop'
Not at all they could just join the Belgium Tendency within NATO. Its very popular at the moment - don't spend enough to even pretend to meet the NATO agreement but claim all the benefits of membership, even Germany has joined.
The problem will come if someone threatens or even God forbid attacks.
NATO is basically:
USA | | | France/Britain | | | | | Others
in terms of capability to actually do stuff.
I think you are out by a factor of ten in your scale. We and the Frogs are now a long, long way behind the US not only in terms of capability to do things but also increasingly in terms of kit to operate with them and nobody else even seems to be trying.
Most of the NATO members now seem to working on the principle that their defence is someone else's problem (and I don't exempt the UK from that remark, especially at sea).
Very much so. The general view seems to be the US will always bail us out.
Mr. F., to an extent it always has been ever since the end of WWII, however, previously European NATO countries at least made an effort (e.g. from memory Belgium could put into the field more tanks than the UK could now). Since 1989 Europe seems to have grabbed its peace dividend and held onto it regardless of the world changing around us, expecting the USA to sort it out. Well, the signs are that the USA, which is as skint as the rest of us, don't want to any more. So what will Europe do?
Conferences, thats my guess, Conferences and Summits. Lots of very expensive travel where the attendees are made to feel powerful and where they can listen to speeches and presentations. They may even, on special occasions, pass motions and issue press releases calling for more cooperation. They may, very occasionally, be allowed to call for increased spending on defence. Perhaps even they may agree that each nation should have a defence budget of 2% of its GDP!
David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence
Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.
Cameron or SeanT?
Mr. Charles I think the original author's idea was that Cameron would drink the whiskey and SeantT would then shoot him Maybe I read it wrong and that Sean would drink the Whiskey and then shoot Cameron, or perhaps Cameron would do the drinking and then shoot himself with SeanT standing by as a, thirsty, witness. The key bit is that, even if Sean doesn't do anything, Cameron comes out of the room feet first.
Interesting.
I read it as Sean would start harranging Cameron until he decided to 'make it stop'
I was going for (and seem to have achieved!) deliberate ambiguity.
David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence
Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.
Cameron or SeanT?
Mr. Charles I think the original author's idea was that Cameron would drink the whiskey and SeantT would then shoot him Maybe I read it wrong and that Sean would drink the Whiskey and then shoot Cameron, or perhaps Cameron would do the drinking and then shoot himself with SeanT standing by as a, thirsty, witness. The key bit is that, even if Sean doesn't do anything, Cameron comes out of the room feet first.
Interesting.
I read it as Sean would start harranging Cameron until he decided to 'make it stop'
I was going for (and seem to have achieved!) deliberate ambiguity.
If Scotland votes Yes, SeanT will much prefer to taunt Labour people over losing Scotland, than making Dave resign.
Not necessarily. Nob/nobby is a very old slang term, roughly equivalent to upmarket/posh, so it's possible the Rt Hon member really meant it in the older sense. I don't know enough to judge which sense one could expect, mind you
David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence
Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.
Cameron or SeanT?
Mr. Charles I think the original author's idea was that Cameron would drink the whiskey and SeantT would then shoot him Maybe I read it wrong and that Sean would drink the Whiskey and then shoot Cameron, or perhaps Cameron would do the drinking and then shoot himself with SeanT standing by as a, thirsty, witness. The key bit is that, even if Sean doesn't do anything, Cameron comes out of the room feet first.
Interesting.
I read it as Sean would start harranging Cameron until he decided to 'make it stop'
I was going for (and seem to have achieved!) deliberate ambiguity.
If Scotland votes Yes, SeanT will much prefer to taunt Labour people over losing Scotland, than making Dave resign.
I'm looking forward to SeanT's reaction if/when No win... :')
David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence
Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.
Cameron or SeanT?
Mr. Charles I think the original author's idea was that Cameron would drink the whiskey and SeantT would then shoot him Maybe I read it wrong and that Sean would drink the Whiskey and then shoot Cameron, or perhaps Cameron would do the drinking and then shoot himself with SeanT standing by as a, thirsty, witness. The key bit is that, even if Sean doesn't do anything, Cameron comes out of the room feet first.
Interesting.
I read it as Sean would start harranging Cameron until he decided to 'make it stop'
I was going for (and seem to have achieved!) deliberate ambiguity.
If Scotland votes Yes, SeanT will much prefer to taunt Labour people over losing Scotland, than making Dave resign.
I'm looking forward to SeanT's reaction if/when No win... :')
Well if Yes wins and it is damaging to Dave, so No winning will be a boost to Dave, which I'm Sean will be pointing out
David Cameron: I will not resign if Scotland votes for independence
Give him a whiskey, a revolver and put him in a dark room with SeanT and he will do the right thing.
Cameron or SeanT?
Mr. Charles I think the original author's idea was that Cameron would drink the whiskey and SeantT would then shoot him Maybe I read it wrong and that Sean would drink the Whiskey and then shoot Cameron, or perhaps Cameron would do the drinking and then shoot himself with SeanT standing by as a, thirsty, witness. The key bit is that, even if Sean doesn't do anything, Cameron comes out of the room feet first.
Interesting.
I read it as Sean would start harranging Cameron until he decided to 'make it stop'
I was going for (and seem to have achieved!) deliberate ambiguity.
If Scotland votes Yes, SeanT will much prefer to taunt Labour people over losing Scotland, than making Dave resign.
I'm looking forward to SeanT's reaction if/when No win... :')
"Vote NO, get Ed? Nooooooooooo! Right I'm going to write a political thriller involving a prominent Scottish Nationalist's run-in with a frustrated North London thriller-writer."
You really think Cameron wasn't told he was getting shafted before he appointed his candidate? This has been negotiated behind the scenes for months.
That should be obvious, but it's not. Cameron wouldn't even return Juncker's calls for a long time, including the time when he was putting together the agenda for the time period when Cameron's renegotiation is supposed to be happening. With Cameron you never quite know how much is performance for party management purposes and how much is sincere emotional prickliness, but there does seem to have been an actual refusal to communicate.
Yes - there is a case for cooperation and a case for withdrawal, but the case for staying in but being sulky and refusing to talk is non-existent. The Tory loyalist view that it produces results in the end has just been tested to destruction.
You could say Mrs Thatcher was in the position of staying in but being sulky .She got a huge rebate in the end which Blair gave away by being nice and cuddly
I would say that Thatcher was the last Prime Minister to have a clear idea of what she wanted Europe to be, and what she wanted was the Single Market, and she made that happen.
Most subsequent British Prime Ministers did not have a clear policy goal in Europe. For Blair he appeared to just want to be liked rather than to change anything in particular, and for Cameron and Major Europe has just been a problem that they want to go away.
This means we are always just reacting to stuff that the other countries propose and we never put any serious effort into making something happen. It's a product of our ambivalence about being a member. With no real conviction of what the purpose of our membership is there is no direction to our engagement with the thing itself.
In many ways I can see a lot of parallels with the Scottish Independence referendum. If NO wins it will be solely because it is the status quo - there has been precious little said about what the Union is for. So it is with membership of the EU. There are lots of dire warnings about the consequences of leaving, but no positive case made for why we are members.
Instinctively I'm a Euro-Federalist and a Unionist, but my side in both "debates" has been, well, not very convincing.
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Civilisations die in decadence. They get too comfortable and fail to rediscover the hunger and drive to survive - and how they became great in the first place. We have smug elites with their lattes, unaffordable welfare utopias, we want to save the whales while our children are gang raped, people care about TV dancing shows but not that we have collectively given up our ability to defend ourselves. To a more basic visceral culture we look and in fact are wide open. The Russians and the Muslims can only look at us and think we're a bunch of utter pussies. For the most part they're right.
The post below, by the way, explains why Sir Ian Wood, the billionaire oil magnate, came out recently to trash the SNP's claims about oil prospects. (Not that any of this seems likely to sway anyone's intention to vote Yes up here, of course. Getting their own back on Mrs Thatcher is far too important for that).
You mean Sir Ian Wood who kept contradicting himself? I suspect that has much more to do with any lack of swaying.
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
And a Taoist Christian with Oxford Movement leanings.
Civilisations die in decadence. They get too comfortable and fail to rediscover the hunger and drive to survive - and how they became great in the first place. We have smug elites with their lattes, unaffordable welfare utopias, we want to save the whales while our children are gang raped, people care about TV dancing shows but not that we have collectively given up our ability to defend ourselves. To a more basic visceral culture we look and in fact are wide open. The Russians and the Muslims can only look at us and think we're a bunch of utter pussies. For the most part they're right.
Yet another post that shows why we need the like button!
Civilisations die in decadence. They get too comfortable and fail to rediscover the hunger and drive to survive - and how they became great in the first place. We have smug elites with their lattes, unaffordable welfare utopias, we want to save the whales while our children are gang raped, people care about TV dancing shows but not that we have collectively given up our ability to defend ourselves. To a more basic visceral culture we look and in fact are wide open. The Russians and the Muslims can only look at us and think we're a bunch of utter pussies. For the most part they're right.
And people that do get worked up about it are smeared until they shut up or are forced to shut up... Even on here
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
@HurstLlama We Zen Christians hold that there was a flood, or several, But that rather than see them as a "miracle of god" we see them as major catastrophes that result in the old order vanishing, and an attempt to build a new and better one. (gods actual involvement is an area of dispute we deem unimportant)
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
Civilisations die in decadence. They get too comfortable and fail to rediscover the hunger and drive to survive - and how they became great in the first place. We have smug elites with their lattes, unaffordable welfare utopias, we want to save the whales while our children are gang raped, people care about TV dancing shows but not that we have collectively given up our ability to defend ourselves. To a more basic visceral culture we look and in fact are wide open. The Russians and the Muslims can only look at us and think we're a bunch of utter pussies. For the most part they're right.
And people that do get worked up about it are smeared until they shut up or are forced to shut up... Even on here
Indeed. But look at our leaders. Dave, Clegg, Milibande - uberPussies the lot of them. The only leader in our recent history who wasn't a total pussy actually had one!
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
Now that did surprise me. On the other hand, they did ask their members.
Sir Brian will be delighted.
"For employers who want to break the unions, one of their greatest weapons is the scab."
That's a grisly combination - the RMT and Sir Brian Souter!
Of course, one of the advantages that the Yes is that people can project their own fantasies on to what independence will mean, even if they are completely contradictory. (The LibDems used to benefit from this, too).
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
Now that did surprise me. On the other hand, they did ask their members.
Sir Brian will be delighted.
"For employers who want to break the unions, one of their greatest weapons is the scab."
That's a grisly combination - the RMT and Sir Brian Souter!
Of course, one of the advantages that the Yes is that people can project their own fantasies on to what independence will mean, even if they are completely contradictory. (The LibDems used to benefit from this, too).
You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh when his bus factory in Falkirk closes.
@Socrates Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly. Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Only a theory, I know, but the innundation of the Black Sea happened around the right time for Jewish and Sumerian flood myths.
"George Clooney has announced he will direct a film about the UK phone-hacking scandal.
The star of Gravity and producer of the Oscar-winning Argo will adapt the book Hack Attack written by The Guardian journalist Nick Davies."
"looney said in a statement: "This has all the elements – lying, corruption, blackmail – at the highest levels of government by the biggest newspaper in London."
In my view David Cameron made two big mistakes in his negotiations over the referendum:
1. He should have insisted on agreeing the question before signing off the Edinburgh. He would then require the question to include the option of remaining in the Union, eg Do you think Scotland should A) be an independent country? or remain part of the United Kingdom?
The question is then, as it should be, a choice between alternatives rather an assertion.
2. He should have insisted on the franchise including Scottish born residents in the UK as well as all residents in Scotland.
If it is a Yes in a fortnight, it will be close enough that those two mistakes will have made the difference.
Comments
Russia may also be able to probe Scotland's sea and air defences almost at will. If a majority of Scots are happy with that, fine, but I wouldn't pretend withdrawing from the world - and hoping the rest of NATO does the heavy lifting if anything serious happens - will make them more safe.
I think the one individual capable of making a difference to this campaign is Billy Connolly. The Big Yin is hugely popular - particularly in Glasgow - and he hates nationalism. However he was so monstered by the nats that he seems to have withdrawn altogether and has pledged not to stick his toe into the festering pit. If I was directing Better Together I'd be on the phone to him right now.
doesn't everybody think he's a dick, though?
Going to check the odds now, but Bobby perhaps at 5-2...
Lets see if my intuition is right !
Silly hypothetical for you: if the UK voted to leave the EU, and London voted to leave the UK, would you choose to remain in London or the UK?
One needs to factor in training. Soldiering is by its nature a young man's game - you need far more people under 25 than over 25. That is taken care of in a big enough force because most youngsters join up for a limited period (for the fun of it and the adventure not as a long term career) but it does involve a lot of churn and a permanent long-term training commitment. If you force is only 3,500 strong in total there is no capacity to cope with that and in the specialist units not enough people to have a big enough core left to deploy.
You might get a combat brigade of 3,500 people with all those functions but only if you can draw that brigade from a much larger army.
P.S. The idea that one, very, small unit of engineers will contain enough men trained to build bridges do mine clearance and other aspects of combat engineering is laughable.
in an article including f*** 20 times
BUSTED >> SNP MSP encourages Yes campaigners to turn up and disrupt @jimmurphy event
http://labli.st/1rOhTCv
The problem will come if someone threatens or even God forbid attacks.
“That’s the way we do these things here, because ultimately modern civilisation was invented between these two peoples. That’s the f***ing truth. You don’t have the modern economy without Adam Smith. You don’t have the logic of liberty without David Hume and all those people. You just don’t."
Hear, f***ing hear.
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-singer-midge-ure-says-3714371
USA
|
|
|
France/Britain
|
|
|
|
|
Others
in terms of capability to actually do stuff.
This means nothing to me
Ohhhh Vienna
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-found-stabbed-to-death-at-house-in-north-london-after-man-goes-on-the-loose-with-machete-9711800.html
Football is like Tennis. The profits there go to subsidise G&T.
Most of the NATO members now seem to working on the principle that their defence is someone else's problem (and I don't exempt the UK from that remark, especially at sea).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsDQ93iguP8
http://youtu.be/ilAlAxVmNEs
I'm not a Scot and not even British. I'm a foreign engineer working in the energy research sector and I have relatives living in Edinburgh and London. I personally don't have an interest in the outcome of this referendum. However as a man of science I do care about the general public getting their facts right.
I'm increasingly concerned by how the Yes campaign is basing a lot of its financial aspiration on the North sea oil resource. The rule of thumb in the energy industry is that you don't listen to politicians or oil businessmen when you want to know how much oil reserves there are left. Either they don't know, they lie to you or tell you a oversimplified answer which has no use in making an informed decision. The estimated amount of barrels available in the north sea is a gross simplification of a complex industrial matter. This tell you nothing if your intention is to forecast how much money you could make at least over the next 3 decades using oil.
People who's job is to know whats happening in the energy industry as a whole knows very well that the oil industry will start to face increasing challenges of obsolescence well before it ever encounter well depletion. The debate is about when these problems start to really affect. The best projection is that it would happen within 15 years. This sounded crazy even to me but I could not run away from the data. When I say obsolescence, I'm not saying that the oil industry is going to keel over in 15 years.
What I'm saying is that the technological & business developments in the energy industry would start to seriously disrupt and change the way we use energy in the next 10 years. The fossil fuel consumer today is like the personal computer user of 1995. You're in for a big shock over the next 15 to 20 years. The result of this is that margin on a barrel of oil gets hit very badly and increasingly uneconomical to go for the hardest to reach oil wells.
If your aspiration is to use the north sea oil resource to build and/or shore-up an economy on the successful Norwegian model, you are 40 to 30 years too late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-kl8Mxvlj4
If I recall, though, they didn't go straight there - they hung around in the desert and camped for a while in lots of places
:S
Fully agree with that. And the real issue is not how much can economically be extracted by the oil companies. The real issue politically is how much of the overall available cashflow from oil in the North Sea will accrue to governments? This will decline faster than the production.
http://news.sky.com/story/1330204/reports-woman-beheaded-in-back-garden
I read it as Sean would start harranging Cameron until he decided to 'make it stop'
Conferences, thats my guess, Conferences and Summits. Lots of very expensive travel where the attendees are made to feel powerful and where they can listen to speeches and presentations. They may even, on special occasions, pass motions and issue press releases calling for more cooperation. They may, very occasionally, be allowed to call for increased spending on defence. Perhaps even they may agree that each nation should have a defence budget of 2% of its GDP!
Not necessarily. Nob/nobby is a very old slang term, roughly equivalent to upmarket/posh, so it's possible the Rt Hon member really meant it in the older sense. I don't know enough to judge which sense one could expect, mind you
40yrs in the desert, 40 days of rain etc.
PS Loved your silverware story on another thread.
and why he was able to feed the 40 using 7 fishes and a scottish plain loaf or two.
(maybe yr rule only applies in the old testament)
Now that did surprise me. On the other hand, they did ask their members.
Most subsequent British Prime Ministers did not have a clear policy goal in Europe. For Blair he appeared to just want to be liked rather than to change anything in particular, and for Cameron and Major Europe has just been a problem that they want to go away.
This means we are always just reacting to stuff that the other countries propose and we never put any serious effort into making something happen. It's a product of our ambivalence about being a member. With no real conviction of what the purpose of our membership is there is no direction to our engagement with the thing itself.
In many ways I can see a lot of parallels with the Scottish Independence referendum. If NO wins it will be solely because it is the status quo - there has been precious little said about what the Union is for. So it is with membership of the EU. There are lots of dire warnings about the consequences of leaving, but no positive case made for why we are members.
Instinctively I'm a Euro-Federalist and a Unionist, but my side in both "debates" has been, well, not very convincing.
Oddly, there are many religions that have a "flood myth", and not just the ones based on the old testament. Miracle births, and crucifixion/sacrifice also figure highly.
Things like that are some of the gems that cause a Zen Christian to smile.
Civilisations die in decadence. They get too comfortable and fail to rediscover the hunger and drive to survive - and how they became great in the first place. We have smug elites with their lattes, unaffordable welfare utopias, we want to save the whales while our children are gang raped, people care about TV dancing shows but not that we have collectively given up our ability to defend ourselves. To a more basic visceral culture we look and in fact are wide open. The Russians and the Muslims can only look at us and think we're a bunch of utter pussies. For the most part they're right.
Awesomeness.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bwsq5_NIgAAkS05.jpg:large
"For employers who want to break the unions, one of their greatest weapons is the scab."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
We Zen Christians hold that there was a flood, or several, But that rather than see them as a "miracle of god" we see them as major catastrophes that result in the old order vanishing, and an attempt to build a new and better one.
(gods actual involvement is an area of dispute we deem unimportant)
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/quit-making-mischief-over-data-smears/2804
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Talking+to+God+on+the+big+white+telephone
How do the Greens know it's going to happen?
Of course, one of the advantages that the Yes is that people can project their own fantasies on to what independence will mean, even if they are completely contradictory. (The LibDems used to benefit from this, too).
It's possible "Noah" was a Sumerian, they have a very similar myth that predates the old testament.
YES 4.7-4.8
NO 1.26-1.27
And that wouldn't be an act of God? Much to deep for a Political Betting website Mr. S.
http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/george-clooney-to-direct-film-about-uk-phone-hacking/350959
"George Clooney has announced he will direct a film about the UK phone-hacking scandal.
The star of Gravity and producer of the Oscar-winning Argo will adapt the book Hack Attack written by The Guardian journalist Nick Davies."
"looney said in a statement: "This has all the elements – lying, corruption, blackmail – at the highest levels of government by the biggest newspaper in London."
1. He should have insisted on agreeing the question before signing off the Edinburgh. He would then require the question to include the option of remaining in the Union, eg Do you think Scotland should A) be an independent country? or
The question is then, as it should be, a choice between alternatives rather an assertion.
2. He should have insisted on the franchise including Scottish born residents in the UK as well as all residents in Scotland.
If it is a Yes in a fortnight, it will be close enough that those two mistakes will have made the difference.