This sort of estimation of politicians is precisely what is wrong with our politics.
Salmond is a useless politician. Useless and dangerous. He has a genius for winning the argument. But his argment is a lie. Look back in ten years after a YES and see that he may have ruined his country. Was Blair a politician genius or a total gimp who gave us 13 years of illegal war, financial ruin and EU surrender? Was Hitler an election winning guru? (yes he was - a political genius of an order his contemporaries had no match for - and what a historically awful human being he was too.)
I find Salmond a smug, arrogant, jowel-faced, baked potato of a man. His constant smirking wants to make me give him a slap. But there's no doubting he's probably the most effective politician in the UK today.
Why? Because he's good at the lying. Any politican who can offer his/her electorate the earth (and convince them to vote for it) is, by definition, effective. After 7 years of SNP government, he's also still popular and has managed to avoid any blame for it's failings.
He's also very fleet of foot. As an example, look how confident and sure footed he was in responding to the visit of the UK party leaders yesterday. He held his nerve, worked out his rebuttal line and kept calmly repeating it whilst emphasising his own message.
He's a snake oil salesman, but boy is he an effective one.
I get the feeling that YES are now in the lead, with some people who were previously NO changing their minds. Also the don't knows appear to be deciding to vote YES more than NO. The YES campaign message in recent weeks of never having to deal with cruel policies from Tories in London, may be reason for this change.
Mike's charts shown above indicate that there was only 11% of DKs left. If all those were added to YES that would give YES a 53/48 lead - but would all those DKs vote YES?
I have to say that something like 55No 45YES would also be pretty sensational at this stage. I don't think it is so cut and dried that this poll will be showing a Yes.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
Just stick the repudiated debt on Englands balance sheet as an asset and veto Scotland's membership of the EU, UN, NATO, visa waiver programme, etc until it is repaid. And charge a defaulter's interest rate - say 10%
It is quite simple. Until there is an agreement over the separation, Westminster would not pass the legislation to end the union with Scotland. The referendum and legislation for it, does not set a date for separation in the event of a YES vote.
Whistling in the dark here but are we not at the point that a lead for no would be pretty sensational?
My daughter was out in the west end of Dundee last night and had the best results for no she has had to date. It is probably one of the best areas in Dundee for No so it would be a mistake to read too much into it but people were more motivated and frankly anxious.
I think you could be right. There was a lot of panicking on here last night (from normally sensible posters) but I believe the UK party leaders are doing the right thing. You could tell because the nats were protesting just a *little* too much.
I think they might be worrying that a genuine emotional appeal from UK leaders seen to be absent, so far, might make those soft YESers who've switched because they don't think England/Westminster care stop and think a minute. Combine that with Gordon Brown's offensive and a definitive devolution timetable and you might just have enough to swingback 2-3% of voters.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
Just stick the repudiated debt on Englands balance sheet as an asset and veto Scotland's membership of the EU, UN, NATO, visa waiver programme, etc until it is repaid. And charge a defaulter's interest rate - say 10%
It is quite simple. Until there is an agreement over the separation, Westminster would not pass the legislation to end the union with Scotland. The referendum and legislation for it, does not set a date for separation in the event of a YES vote.
No, it isn't that simple. Scotland could just secede, as the Irish did in 1918. (Incidentally, all the arguments about currencies and banks which obsess so many people here were just as applicable 96 years ago. The Irish seemed to manage.)
Got a feeling Yes is going to do it. Salmond is just an absolute master - looking at him last night, calm, funny, relaxed, charismatic. You would never know that he was on the brink of completing his life's work. In another strata of talent to our lot.
Good point. In addition to what I said below, Salmond is *funny*. He told a couple of jokes that got coverage on the news last night (e.g. I'd give them the "bus fare") I really didn't want to find him funny, and laugh along, but I did. He has a (irritatingly) effective TV presence that no other politican can match.
However, he's also starting to look a bit knackered (the campaign is gruelling) so it'll be interesting to see if he can keep that stamina up until the end. Probable, but not certain - he may slip up in the next week.
Shame Scotland couldn't have gone independent before 1997.
A historic nation that deserves to exist again now the rationale behind the Union has long since ended. We have, and always have had, such different political cultures.
I get the feeling that YES are now in the lead, with some people who were previously NO changing their minds.
Anecdotally that's my experience. A substantial amount of Nos were of the soft variety, and the Yes campaign's tactic of asking voters to grade their feelings on indy between 1-10 is beginning to reap benefits in targeting return visits.
Confession: the best colour for my floral Saltire lobelia was Fothergills Cambridge Blue. ( The alyssum is fading fast , but I have some nice white rocks from Gill's Bay)
And the £ likely to plunge again tomorrow along with Scottish shares, if another clear Yes lead, if the Scots plunge us back into recession through all this I don't know if the English will ever forgive them
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
Just stick the repudiated debt on Englands balance sheet as an asset and veto Scotland's membership of the EU, UN, NATO, visa waiver programme, etc until it is repaid. And charge a defaulter's interest rate - say 10%
It is quite simple. Until there is an agreement over the separation, Westminster would not pass the legislation to end the union with Scotland. The referendum and legislation for it, does not set a date for separation in the event of a YES vote.
. The Irish seemed to manage.)
Not in a manner that many Scots would enjoy:
There, the people of the Republic of Ireland have mostly ignored the rest of the Celtic fringe, being obsessed instead with nurturing old grievances towards England (aka the Saxon, perfidious Albion, the old enemy and so on). Anti-Englishness was our identity: the evil country’s role was to take the blame for all our wrongs and accept our immigrants uncomplainingly. Ireland was thus a mean little country that I gladly quit in the Sixties – insular, sectarian and with a political class that allowed itself to be bossed about by a rigid and intolerant Roman Catholic hierarchy and drove out most of its writers and creative minds along with the jobless. Such narrow-mindedness is a grim warning of what might await an independent Scotland.
Small indirect indication: RedBox (the e-Times briefing) did a snap YouGov poll (which appears to beon what people thought of Brown's DevoMax plan. 32% thought it likely to help No, 14% thought it would hurt No. Scots were reportedly strongly in favour (no figures given) though in England only Londoners were and nationally it was an even split.
Morning all. I don't doubt that there will be turmoil in the case of a 'Yes' vote. However, I do think it's yet another example of what a great nation we are. We are prepared to let the Scots go their own way, in a reasonably civilised fashion. What other country would be so saintly?
There have been lots of examples: Czechoslovakia is a recent one; the Baltic States were able to split off too without any very serious hassle despite genuinely deep reciprocal dislike among many on both sides; Denmark/Norway, etc. The Balkans were an aberration.
Amusing punishment reported in the Telegraph's morning briefing:
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
Small indirect indication: RedBox (the e-Times briefing) did a snap YouGov poll (which appears to beon what people thought of Brown's DevoMax plan. 32% thought it likely to help No, 14% thought it would hurt No. Scots were reportedly strongly in favour (no figures given) though in England only Londoners were and nationally it was an even split.
Morning all. I don't doubt that there will be turmoil in the case of a 'Yes' vote. However, I do think it's yet another example of what a great nation we are. We are prepared to let the Scots go their own way, in a reasonably civilised fashion. What other country would be so saintly?
There have been lots of examples: Czechoslovakia is a recent one; the Baltic States were able to split off too without any very serious hassle despite genuinely deep reciprocal dislike among many on both sides; Denmark/Norway, etc. The Balkans were an aberration.
There may be something romantic in the idea of Scottish nationalism with visions of Braveheart. But has anyone considered what will happen if it leads to English Nationalism? A much uglier animal. I don't get visions of Braveheart but ugly ones of Nick Griffin and Oswald Moseley.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
Just stick the repudiated debt on Englands balance sheet as an asset and veto Scotland's membership of the EU, UN, NATO, visa waiver programme, etc until it is repaid. And charge a defaulter's interest rate - say 10%
It is quite simple. Until there is an agreement over the separation, Westminster would not pass the legislation to end the union with Scotland. The referendum and legislation for it, does not set a date for separation in the event of a YES vote.
. The Irish seemed to manage.)
Not in a manner that many Scots would enjoy:
There, the people of the Republic of Ireland have mostly ignored the rest of the Celtic fringe, being obsessed instead with nurturing old grievances towards England (aka the Saxon, perfidious Albion, the old enemy and so on). Anti-Englishness was our identity: the evil country’s role was to take the blame for all our wrongs and accept our immigrants uncomplainingly. Ireland was thus a mean little country that I gladly quit in the Sixties – insular, sectarian and with a political class that allowed itself to be bossed about by a rigid and intolerant Roman Catholic hierarchy and drove out most of its writers and creative minds along with the jobless. Such narrow-mindedness is a grim warning of what might await an independent Scotland.
I was thinking primarily of the economic issues - I agree with Ruth Dudley Edwards about the cultural implication of the Scots' separating. Why wouldn't every future Holyrood government blame the English every time things aren't exactly to their liking? Of course they will.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
The "screw you then" mentality is nothing like as widespread as you would think, although admittedly you would think it pretty widespread if you based your assessment on the pooled views of PB (always a bad idea). Outside a core of vindictive extremists, I think most people would be sad to see Scotland go, but would wish them well in their endeavours. And rightly so.
Though there may be something romantic in the idea of Scottish nationalism with visions of Braveheart. But has anyone considered what will happen if it leads to English Nationalism? A much uglier animal. I don't get visions of Braveheart but ugly ones of Nick Griffin and Oswald Moseley.
Nick Griffin elected under a Labour government, and Oswald Mosley, a former Labour MP*, can you spot a trend there?
Amusing punishment reported in the Telegraph's morning briefing:
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
Gore Vidal, in his novel Myron, named various naughty bits after the Justices of the Supreme Court of the USA...
Small indirect indication: RedBox (the e-Times briefing) did a snap YouGov poll (which appears to beon what people thought of Brown's DevoMax plan. 32% thought it likely to help No, 14% thought it would hurt No. Scots were reportedly strongly in favour (no figures given) though in England only Londoners were and nationally it was an even split.
Morning all. I don't doubt that there will be turmoil in the case of a 'Yes' vote. However, I do think it's yet another example of what a great nation we are. We are prepared to let the Scots go their own way, in a reasonably civilised fashion. What other country would be so saintly?
There have been lots of examples: Czechoslovakia is a recent one; the Baltic States were able to split off too without any very serious hassle despite genuinely deep reciprocal dislike among many on both sides; Denmark/Norway, etc. The Balkans were an aberration.
Ukraine/Russia is another aberration.
The others had borders that reflected ethnic reality, the Balkans and Ukraine didn't being more based on Communist gerrymandering.
Arguably the Anglo-Scottish border is the most accurately delineated on these islands.
I suspect many Scots are in turmoil. Their heads so NO, their hearts say YES. How is any pollster supposed to interpret that? Impossible.
On any objective analysis, the economic case for iScotland has not been made. Athough there is a wilfull refusal to listen by the SNP leadership, THERE WILL BE NO CURRENCY UNION. Politics south of the border dictate that. As well as every tenet of economics. Jobs will be lost. Capital will fly away. Top rate tax payers will follow, rightly fearing that they will be asked to bear the brunt of paying for this new Scotland. Living standards will drop. The public purse will be have to be cut and the safety net for the poor be more holes than net.
And yet... Anybody pointing this out is a Braveheartless bastard. You don't have the vision. You don't share the dream. Which is why the Leaders from London will not turn things around. They aren't peddling a line that wants to be heard.
So good luck Scotland. Take your chance and make the break.
But know this: within days, that which you poo-pooed as being Project Fear will start to come to pass. Salmond's gloating smug smile will last moments, before the likes of RBS start to pack up their bags and leave. The drawing in of the winter nights will mirror the darkening state of the Scottish economy. Sure, things will finally improve. But before that is the biting cold of an Unclear Winter. And during those days, expect the politicians of Scotland to be the most reviled people in any of our combined lands.
"Why didn't you TELL US?" will ring out. And again, you will be a Braveheartless bastard for pointing out "We did."
Amusing punishment reported in the Telegraph's morning briefing:
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
Nice to see you think that's amusing Nick: your nasty side is showing through again. You are a true Labour man.
Morning all. I don't doubt that there will be turmoil in the case of a 'Yes' vote. However, I do think it's yet another example of what a great nation we are. We are prepared to let the Scots go their own way, in a reasonably civilised fashion. What other country would be so saintly?
Once we leave the EU we can resume our eternal wars against the Frenchies and the Scots, and all that was old will be new again. Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George!
Harry? Planning a bit of old-fashioned English regicide are we?
I agree that we have come a long way in one hundred years. Just over a century ago Protestants in Ulster were forming armed militia to fight against Home Rule for Ireland, let alone independence, and this even went as far as to lead to mutiny in the Army.
The worst we have this time is the Orange Order march this weekend.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
Scotland looks to be in deep trouble now. The mood in England is very clearly rapidly becoming a firm 'screw you then'. The negotiations will be awful - and Scotland will emerge into the world with its largest customer and the country whose money it will use being very very pissed off. If they are foolish enough to stick to the debt share threat then England may become outright hostile in other ways. The actual separation will cause huge instability, costs and resentments across the whole UK. The political dynamic in England will certainly be to ensure that Scotland bears the brunt of that. Generosity and neighbourly cheer will be in terminally short supply. The sensible half of Scotland must be in deep deep despair.
Outside a core of vindictive extremists, I think most people would be sad to see Scotland go, but would wish them well in their endeavours. And rightly so.
Go to any Scotland article in the Guardian, Telegraph, Mail, Evening Standard, Spectator, Independent, Guido - pretty much the whole web in fact - and read the comments sections. It is not my imagining but my observation. England is angry. And awake.
There is a howl of anguish in the Times from former Tory prime minister John Major.
He only just avoids using the words 'I told you so'. Because, remember, two decades ago, he did.
He did say devolution will lead to separation. He pleaded with people not to back the model of devolution that was on offer at the time and he does feel 'I told you so, this is what I said would happen'.
His warning, to Scots as well as to the rest of the UK, is that independence will undermine the role of both nations in the world.
It is a sign of real shock running through the establishment in London about what they fear might be about to happen.
I have to say that something like 55No 45YES would also be pretty sensational at this stage. I don't think it is so cut and dried that this poll will be showing a Yes.
Another whistler!
I have just grown to hate these teases by the polling companies. Maybe it's going to show a majority in favour of the super secret third option on the Ballot paper!
Though there may be something romantic in the idea of Scottish nationalism with visions of Braveheart. But has anyone considered what will happen if it leads to English Nationalism? A much uglier animal. I don't get visions of Braveheart but ugly ones of Nick Griffin and Oswald Moseley.
What about that drunken loser Charles Edward Stuart, The Young Pretender adorning shortbread boxes all over Scotland & the UK. Then the Charge of The Scots Greys at Waterloo is very different Unionist message to Scots. Scots Nationalism has a strong element of schizophrenia, but if you want something really ugly think of sectarian undercurrents hiding under that Tartan facade.
"This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands,-- This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."
Plenty of film and book titles tucked away in those few lines.
There is a howl of anguish in the Times from former Tory prime minister John Major.
He only just avoids using the words 'I told you so'. Because, remember, two decades ago, he did.
He did say devolution will lead to separation. He pleaded with people not to back the model of devolution that was on offer at the time and he does feel 'I told you so, this is what I said would happen'.
His warning, to Scots as well as to the rest of the UK, is that independence will undermine the role of both nations in the world.
It is a sign of real shock running through the establishment in London about what they fear might be about to happen.
Only the political establishment wants a role in the world, another reason for yes.
Too many councils are employing staff on contracts with no guarantee of minimum hours, the union Unison claims.
Eight of the 22 Welsh councils are currently using zero-hours contracts, research by BBC Wales has found.
Nearly 4,000 people are directly employed on the contracts by Welsh councils, with Powys council the biggest user of them.
The councils say the contracts often suit employees, and staff still get benefits like sick pay and paid leave.
Powys council, which is run by a group of independents, employs 2,047 people on zero-hours contracts. It currently has 4,714 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. Labour-run councils Bridgend and Swansea have 418 and 482 staff respectively on zero-hours contracts respectively. Bridgend has a total of 5,164 FTE staff, Swansea has 10,330.
Amusing punishment reported in the Telegraph's morning briefing:
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
Nice to see you think that's amusing Nick: your nasty side is showing through again. You are a true Labour man.
I have to say that something like 55No 45YES would also be pretty sensational at this stage. I don't think it is so cut and dried that this poll will be showing a Yes.
Another whistler!
I have just grown to hate these teases by the polling companies. Maybe it's going to show a majority in favour of the super secret third option on the Ballot paper!
I agree. I find their "isn't it all a bit of a laugh" attitude grating.
Gordon Brown's pleadings to the Scottish voters might be taken more seriously had he bothered to turn up at the House of Commons rather more over the past over the past 4 years. That is after all what a large part of his MP's salary is supposed to be for.
ObitusRoger Oh undoubtedly the day after polling day the switch will be from Scottish to English nationalism with a vengeance if it does occur, UKIP will rise significantly on an anti currency union path
Amusing punishment reported in the Telegraph's morning briefing:
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
Nice to see you think that's amusing Nick: your nasty side is showing through again. You are a true Labour man.
Unfortunately it appears that the No campaign is built on we hate the Tories, the English hate us, be proud to be Scots, its our oil and nothing will really change. This is not a basis to build a country on. Spoke with a typical Yes voter yesterday. Working class, Celtic fan but voted Labour all his life. The brain washing had been strong. Look at the NHS privatisation in England he said as if that (a) mattered or (b) was true. When discussed about business he said they are only interested in money as if that was a bad idea.
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
I still think that No is ahead as the old are out and voting No already. The wealthy and the voters with families outside Scotland will vote No. The core vote of the Yes will be the little Scotlanders. Labour needs to get out and talk to its voters on the housing estates though.
Both Sotloff and Foley were handed over to ISIL by the 'moderate' Free Syrian Army we armed, trained and financed. A role in the world no nation should be providing.
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
UKIP will rise significantly on an anti currency union path
Which is why none of the three traditional parties will touch it with a barge pole - despite what Salmond thinks. Why would any rUK party put themselves through such grief? If the Scots think Westminster does not care about them now, wait to see how it behaves if they vote yes.
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
The Westminster parties have created a situation in which Scotland's voters will buy Salmond's snake oil. The crushing disappointment and disillusion that comes after falsely promised hope is the most negative emotion of all. Independent Scotland will not be a happy place
I think I've finally had an epiphany about the IndyRef. I had a dream that some nitwit asked me to fly a Saltire from my flagpole *in support of the Union*.
I said I'd rather fly the Jolly Roger.
So that's me in the Yes Please Bugger Off camp. I was clearly kidding myself that I *cared* about staying together!
Second! Like the Separatists on the 19th, with a bit of luck.....
Meanwhile Eck's consequence free fantasy land skips blithely along:
Independent Scotland won't pay back debt, Alex Salmond says First Minister reportedly taunted the Westminster government over whether an independent Scotland should take on its share of the national debt, saying: “What are they going to do – invade?”
Amusing punishment reported in the Telegraph's morning briefing:
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
Nice to see you think that's amusing Nick: your nasty side is showing through again. You are a true Labour man.
I think it's quite funny. Am I a true Labour man?
No. Just silly.
Is all book-banning big and clever, or just tory book-banning?
Clearly a YES lead. A NO lead would not be "sensational".
If it is I'm calling it for YES.
And then it's time to batten down the hatches. An appalling result for both main parties, for the entire British Establishment, but possibly rather good for rightwingers who want England run by a Tory-UKIP government.
I will enjoy the angst of the luvvies when they realise this.
But let's hope I am totally wrong on the potential economic fall-out.
What, exactly, is the basis for this fantasy Tory-UKIP pact/government that people are speculating on? The Tories are promising a referendum already. We would not leave the EU without a referendum. UKIP say that Cameron won't negotiate any real change in advance of that referendum, but they want out anyway, so that lack of real change should be to their advantage.
A Tory-UKIP pact/government may be the wet dream of many on the right, but would stand a good chance of repelling more voters than it gained.
Just because you want something badly, does not mean that it's workable.
It's totally workable, unless you're a europhile.
There will be no EU referendum in 2017. We will in the throes of negotiating our own dissolution. Impossible.
And polls show the combined Tory-UKIP vote easily outweighs other parties. It is a much more obvious match than Tory-Lib Dem.
Well, that's rubbish. I'm firmly on the fence over Europe, but there's no way I could vote UKIP unless their candidate was absolutely first-rate.
The problem is that UKIP is a grand coalition of the pi**ed off. You have traditional Tory voters such as SeanF, and Labour voters (I think) like iSam, along with na scattering of never-voters and LibDems. They are united by an anger at the state of the country and 'LibLabCon'.The idea that he latter would vote Conservative, or for an alliance with the Conservatives, is doubtful (although I guess iSam would).
Also, UKIP is, rightly or wrongly, thought of as being extreme. Many people are actively repelled by them, and that would include many centrist Conservative voters.
It's not as simple as adding the Tory and UKIP polling.
The Westminster parties have created a situation in which Scotland's voters will buy Salmond's snake oil.
I think we may overestimate the direct impact of Westminster - a lot of SLAB's problems are home grown - as we saw at the time of Falkirk (remember that non-story?)
The three-year independence campaign rollercoaster has been one Labour have misplayed at nearly every single opportunity. That hasn't been bad luck; or because Alex Salmond and the SNP have some omnipotent power. It tells us something about how Scottish Labour don't really get modern Scotland.
The Westminster parties have created a situation in which Scotland's voters will buy Salmond's snake oil. The crushing disappointment and disillusion that comes after falsely promised hope is the most negative emotion of all. Independent Scotland will not be a happy place
I think I've finally had an epiphany about the IndyRef. I had a dream that some nitwit asked me to fly a Saltire from my flagpole *in support of the Union*.
I said I'd rather fly the Jolly Roger.
So that's me in the Yes Please Bugger Off camp. I was clearly kidding myself that I *cared* about staying together!
Second! Like the Separatists on the 19th, with a bit of luck.....
Meanwhile Eck's consequence free fantasy land skips blithely along:
Independent Scotland won't pay back debt, Alex Salmond says First Minister reportedly taunted the Westminster government over whether an independent Scotland should take on its share of the national debt, saying: “What are they going to do – invade?”
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
Both Sotloff and Foley were handed over to ISIL by the 'moderate' Free Syrian Army we armed, trained and financed. A role in the world no nation should be providing.
Confession: the best colour for my floral Saltire lobelia was Fothergills Cambridge Blue. ( The alyssum is fading fast , but I have some nice white rocks from Gill's Bay)
Amusing punishment reported in the Telegraph's morning briefing:
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
Nice to see you think that's amusing Nick: your nasty side is showing through again. You are a true Labour man.
I think it's quite funny. Am I a true Labour man?
No. Just silly.
Is all book-banning big and clever, or just tory book-banning?
If drugs, mobiles and other contraband are being smuggled in in books, then procedures need to be put in place to stop them being smuggled in. I'd prefer that to be thorough checking of the books, rather than bans, when books are probably useful learning tools and links with the outside world.
It *may* also be wise to prevent certain types of books getting to certain types of criminals.
But it is a wholly different matter to what these authors are doing.
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
very creepy bit of law. Gives police and courts powers to basically invent an arrest if they feel like it.
The country should not be so thick as to not be able to distinguish between a threat, intimidation and an insult.
Same goes for the creepy religious hatred laws . Why should it be illegal to hate or insult a belief you don't believe in and is plainly mumbo jumbo
There's a deleted scene in Jurassic Park 2 where Pete Postlethwaite is trying to start a fight with an American in a bar and comes up with the line:
"you, sir, are no gentlemen" "is that supposed to be an insult?" "I can think of none greater" "buzz off you old man" "what do I have to do to pick a fight with you, bring your mother into it?"
It's not really that relevant but it's great. And I do worry that we're completely incapable of seeing the difference between threat, intimidation, insult, whatever.
Miss Plato, one suspects Mr. G will take a few days from the site whatever happens. He'll either be miserable or bouncing around like Tigger.
Dr. Spyn, never heard of religiously aggravated assault prior to that attack. It's as deranged as 'hate crime'. If you murder someone because they're black it doesn't make them more dead than if you do it because they slept with your wife. And if it's found to be 'hate crime' and later proven not to be, surely you'd get your sentence reduced?
An English Parliament with English MP,s voting on English matters!Now! If it can be sorted for the Scots in a matter of weeks it can be sorted for the English in a matter of months before the 2015 GE.That solves the problem of Scottish MP's in the event of yes vote in the transitional period to independence and in the event of a no vote stops Scottish MP's voting on English matters. Time for those wanting a federal solution to start a petition before momentum for constitutional change is lost or ignored post May 2015 GE.
Got a feeling Yes is going to do it. Salmond is just an absolute master - looking at him last night, calm, funny, relaxed, charismatic. You would never know that he was on the brink of completing his life's work. In another strata of talent to our lot.
Good point. In addition to what I said below, Salmond is *funny*. He told a couple of jokes that got coverage on the news last night (e.g. I'd give them the "bus fare") I really didn't want to find him funny, and laugh along, but I did. He has a (irritatingly) effective TV presence that no other politican can match.
However, he's also starting to look a bit knackered (the campaign is gruelling) so it'll be interesting to see if he can keep that stamina up until the end. Probable, but not certain - he may slip up in the next week.
Tiredness did get him in the first Darling/Salmond debate, he's just admitted.
One other very important factor is that he has led a team which has run Scotland in the Scottish Pmt pretty well, and rather better than the previous Lab-LD coalition, despite active obstruction by Lab, LD and Tories during the first minority administration. By 'well', I mean they did it well enough to be elected with an increased vote, a significant number of whom will be voting No as we keep being told here.
He's also had the sense/confidence to establish/allow an even more popular successor in waiting - Nicola Sturgeon.
Apart from what that says about him, it also reassures people that the initial administration of an independent Scotland would be reasonably competent.
Now to see what is happening with his London oppos ...
No, it isn't that simple. Scotland could just secede, as the Irish did in 1918. (Incidentally, all the arguments about currencies and banks which obsess so many people here were just as applicable 96 years ago. The Irish seemed to manage.)
Scotland could not just secede, for as long as the Scottish National Party wants to remain a constitutional party. Modification of the Acts of Union is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and will remain so on September 19, whatever the result of the referendum, which is, after, merely consultative. Were a secessionist ordinance to pass the Scottish Parliament, it would be reduced by the Court of Session immediately. In fact, the Advocate General, Attorney General or Secretary of State could block any such Bill of the Scottish Parliament from being submitted to the Queen for Royal Assent before its legality was ascertained. The question for the Scottish Government would then be whether to proceed down the high road to lawlessness.
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
In the game of competitive fear-mongering, the yes campaign is winning when it creates a feeling of equivalent risk everywhere, so that voters are made dizzy with numbers, their eyes glazing over at another data-laden argument about economics and institutions. Then the advantage goes to the campaign with romance on its side. Because if there are mistakes to be made either way, it feels right to take the path of indigenously Scottish mistakes.
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
Everybody knew that, and really, so what?
However there are some very "dark" rumours about him out there if you know where to look....
The Westminster parties have created a situation in which Scotland's voters will buy Salmond's snake oil. The crushing disappointment and disillusion that comes after falsely promised hope is the most negative emotion of all. Independent Scotland will not be a happy place
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
very creepy bit of law. Gives police and courts powers to basically invent an arrest if they feel like it.
The country should not be so thick as to not be able to distinguish between a threat, intimidation and an insult.
Same goes for the creepy religious hatred laws . Why should it be illegal to hate or insult a belief you don't believe in and is plainly mumbo jumbo
There's a deleted scene in Jurassic Park 2 where Pete Postlethwaite is trying to start a fight with an American in a bar and comes up with the line:
"you, sir, are no gentlemen" "is that supposed to be an insult?" "I can think of none greater" "buzz off you old man" "what do I have to do to pick a fight with you, bring your mother into it?"
It's not really that relevant but it's great. And I do worry that we're completely incapable of seeing the difference between threat, intimidation, insult, whatever.
Italian fans campaigned for the right to be insulted
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
I thought this was an open secret...
Yeah next he'll be telling us David's just beat Goliath
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
Yeah, that's really been the No campaign's failing, not mentioning Salmond enough. If only they'd done it a bit more, they wouldn't have lost a 30 pt lead in a year.
Your Indy predictions & insights on here have been some of the most hilariously half baked around; considering some of the competition, that's some going.
The Westminster parties have created a situation in which Scotland's voters will buy Salmond's snake oil. The crushing disappointment and disillusion that comes after falsely promised hope is the most negative emotion of all. Independent Scotland will not be a happy place
I think you fundamentally understand nationalism. There will be plenty of useful foreign scapegoats if things don't work out precisely to plan.
There is a howl of anguish in the Times from former Tory prime minister John Major.
He only just avoids using the words 'I told you so'. Because, remember, two decades ago, he did.
He did say devolution will lead to separation. He pleaded with people not to back the model of devolution that was on offer at the time and he does feel 'I told you so, this is what I said would happen'.
His warning, to Scots as well as to the rest of the UK, is that independence will undermine the role of both nations in the world.
It is a sign of real shock running through the establishment in London about what they fear might be about to happen.
Even though I'm sure he's upset about what's going on, it must be personally satisfying watching all Blair/Brown/Mandy-Campbell's chickens coming home to roost last few years...
Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) 10/09/2014 09:20 “@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
It *may* also be wise to prevent certain types of books getting to certain types of criminals.
But it is a wholly different matter to what these authors are doing.
We have free speech in this country, and the authors are mocking a stupid authoritarian policy from an authoritarian Secretary of State. Good on them.
As for the first point, it is surely right that prisoners should be encouraged to engage in the life of contemplation while serving time, which, as Aristotle observes in Ethics Bk.X, is superior to the life of activity. That means reading. Unless a book is per se unlawful, as tending to stir up racial hatred or corrupting public morals for example, or otherwise undermines prison security, it should be permitted.
So....it looks like the YESSERS may win after all. And the rest of us are turnips. Okeydoke.
But...ultimately the joke is on them.
SNIP
Just stick the repudiated debt on Englands balance sheet as an asset and veto Scotland's membership of the EU, UN, NATO, visa waiver programme, etc until it is repaid. And charge a defaulter's interest rate - say 10%
It is quite simple. Until there is an agreement over the separation, Westminster would not pass the legislation to end the union with Scotland. The referendum and legislation for it, does not set a date for separation in the event of a YES vote.
. The Irish seemed to manage.)
Not in a manner that many Scots would enjoy:
There, the people of the Republic of Ireland have mostly ignored the rest of the Celtic fringe, being obsessed instead with nurturing old grievances towards England (aka the Saxon, perfidious Albion, the old enemy and so on). Anti-Englishness was our identity: the evil country’s role was to take the blame for all our wrongs and accept our immigrants uncomplainingly. Ireland was thus a mean little country that I gladly quit in the Sixties – insular, sectarian and with a political class that allowed itself to be bossed about by a rigid and intolerant Roman Catholic hierarchy and drove out most of its writers and creative minds along with the jobless. Such narrow-mindedness is a grim warning of what might await an independent Scotland.
I was thinking primarily of the economic issues - I agree with Ruth Dudley Edwards about the cultural implication of the Scots' separating. Why wouldn't every future Holyrood government blame the English every time things aren't exactly to their liking? Of course they will.
Comments
Why? Because he's good at the lying. Any politican who can offer his/her electorate the earth (and convince them to vote for it) is, by definition, effective. After 7 years of SNP government, he's also still popular and has managed to avoid any blame for it's failings.
He's also very fleet of foot. As an example, look how confident and sure footed he was in responding to the visit of the UK party leaders yesterday. He held his nerve, worked out his rebuttal line and kept calmly repeating it whilst emphasising his own message.
He's a snake oil salesman, but boy is he an effective one.
I think they might be worrying that a genuine emotional appeal from UK leaders seen to be absent, so far, might make those soft YESers who've switched because they don't think England/Westminster care stop and think a minute. Combine that with Gordon Brown's offensive and a definitive devolution timetable and you might just have enough to swingback 2-3% of voters.
It's going to be close.
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch 37s
Bigger problem! Wrestling with Scottish vote. Scottish Sun No. 1.
Head over heart, or just maybe both lead to same conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
However, he's also starting to look a bit knackered (the campaign is gruelling) so it'll be interesting to see if he can keep that stamina up until the end. Probable, but not certain - he may slip up in the next week.
Is even the General Election going to look a bit tedious and unimportant compared to the referendum?
Are you putting very significant money on your prophesy?
A historic nation that deserves to exist again now the rationale behind the Union has long since ended. We have, and always have had, such different political cultures.
Cambridge Blue. ( The alyssum is fading fast , but I have some nice white rocks from Gill's Bay)
One will be a minor footnote, one will be an epochal event
There, the people of the Republic of Ireland have mostly ignored the rest of the Celtic fringe, being obsessed instead with nurturing old grievances towards England (aka the Saxon, perfidious Albion, the old enemy and so on). Anti-Englishness was our identity: the evil country’s role was to take the blame for all our wrongs and accept our immigrants uncomplainingly. Ireland was thus a mean little country that I gladly quit in the Sixties – insular, sectarian and with a political class that allowed itself to be bossed about by a rigid and intolerant Roman Catholic hierarchy and drove out most of its writers and creative minds along with the jobless.
Such narrow-mindedness is a grim warning of what might await an independent Scotland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11084603/Scotland-should-heed-a-harsh-lesson-from-across-the-Irish-Sea.html
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch 9m
Scots better people than to be dependants of London. Hard choice with real pain for some time. Maybe too much.
MichaelWhite @MichaelWhite 6m
@rupertmurdoch We'll put you down as a Don't Know then, Mr Murdoch. These things can be a bit confusing as one gets older
After his ban on sending books into prisoners, Chris Grayling was given an unlikely punishment, after the author Kathy Lette named a villain after him. Tim Walker reveals that she has persuaded fellow writers Margaret Drabble, David Hare and Mark Haddon to name their baddies after the Secretary of State as well. "We'll annoy him into submission," she says.
You must hope Salmond and Sturgeon aren't a modern day Varro and Paullus
The "screw you then" mentality is not The "screw you then" mentality is nothing like as widespread as you would think, although admittedly you would think it pretty widespread if you based your assessment on the pooled views of PB (always a bad idea). Outside a core of vindictive extremists, I think most people would be sad to see Scotland go, but would wish them well in their endeavours. And rightly so.
Vote Tory to stop English Nationalism
*I know, I'm trolling Roger
Arguably the Anglo-Scottish border is the most accurately delineated on these islands.
On any objective analysis, the economic case for iScotland has not been made. Athough there is a wilfull refusal to listen by the SNP leadership, THERE WILL BE NO CURRENCY UNION. Politics south of the border dictate that. As well as every tenet of economics. Jobs will be lost. Capital will fly away. Top rate tax payers will follow, rightly fearing that they will be asked to bear the brunt of paying for this new Scotland. Living standards will drop. The public purse will be have to be cut and the safety net for the poor be more holes than net.
And yet... Anybody pointing this out is a Braveheartless bastard. You don't have the vision. You don't share the dream. Which is why the Leaders from London will not turn things around. They aren't peddling a line that wants to be heard.
So good luck Scotland. Take your chance and make the break.
But know this: within days, that which you poo-pooed as being Project Fear will start to come to pass. Salmond's gloating smug smile will last moments, before the likes of RBS start to pack up their bags and leave. The drawing in of the winter nights will mirror the darkening state of the Scottish economy. Sure, things will finally improve. But before that is the biting cold of an Unclear Winter. And during those days, expect the politicians of Scotland to be the most reviled people in any of our combined lands.
"Why didn't you TELL US?" will ring out. And again, you will be a Braveheartless bastard for pointing out "We did."
I agree that we have come a long way in one hundred years. Just over a century ago Protestants in Ulster were forming armed militia to fight against Home Rule for Ireland, let alone independence, and this even went as far as to lead to mutiny in the Army.
The worst we have this time is the Orange Order march this weekend.
Political editor
Analysis
Posted at 08:29
There is a howl of anguish in the Times from former Tory prime minister John Major.
He only just avoids using the words 'I told you so'. Because, remember, two decades ago, he did.
He did say devolution will lead to separation. He pleaded with people not to back the model of devolution that was on offer at the time and he does feel 'I told you so, this is what I said would happen'.
His warning, to Scots as well as to the rest of the UK, is that independence will undermine the role of both nations in the world.
It is a sign of real shock running through the establishment in London about what they fear might be about to happen.
"This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,--
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."
Plenty of film and book titles tucked away in those few lines.
Eight of the 22 Welsh councils are currently using zero-hours contracts, research by BBC Wales has found.
Nearly 4,000 people are directly employed on the contracts by Welsh councils, with Powys council the biggest user of them.
The councils say the contracts often suit employees, and staff still get benefits like sick pay and paid leave.
Powys council, which is run by a group of independents, employs 2,047 people on zero-hours contracts. It currently has 4,714 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff.
Labour-run councils Bridgend and Swansea have 418 and 482 staff respectively on zero-hours contracts respectively. Bridgend has a total of 5,164 FTE staff, Swansea has 10,330.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29128623
A wee Kirk, with declining numbers, suddenly has a busy Sunday.
The Minister, sensing a Wedding in the offing, decides to let rip in his sermon.
When ye dee, yer all goan te hell.
And you will roast for eternity in the fires of damnation.
Then you will see The Lord in the green pastures of heaven, and ye will say
"oh Lord, we didna ken!"
And The Lord, in his infinite wisdom, compassion and mercy will say
Weel - ya ken noo!
The key weakness of the Yes campaign is Salmond. He has become the Yes Campaign and the No should target him. Enough people don't trust or like him. When I mentioned this to the Yes voter he then started to waver. Would he go against Labour and vote Salmond. He went away to think about that.
I still think that No is ahead as the old are out and voting No already. The wealthy and the voters with families outside Scotland will vote No. The core vote of the Yes will be the little Scotlanders. Labour needs to get out and talk to its voters on the housing estates though.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-jihadis-paid-for-tip-to-capture-steven-sotloff-9722256.html?printService=print
How do you insult someone legally?
Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?
British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults..... But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.
For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.
But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.
A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.
Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.
The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18102815
The country should not be so thick as to not be able to distinguish between a threat, intimidation and an insult.
Same goes for the creepy religious hatred laws . Why should it be illegal to hate or insult a belief you don't believe in and is plainly mumbo jumbo
I think I've finally had an epiphany about the IndyRef. I had a dream that some nitwit asked me to fly a Saltire from my flagpole *in support of the Union*.
I said I'd rather fly the Jolly Roger.
So that's me in the Yes Please Bugger Off camp. I was clearly kidding myself that I *cared* about staying together!
And given I'm a lady of easy political virtue - that's saying something :^ )
The three-year independence campaign rollercoaster has been one Labour have misplayed at nearly every single opportunity. That hasn't been bad luck; or because Alex Salmond and the SNP have some omnipotent power. It tells us something about how Scottish Labour don't really get modern Scotland.
http://www.scottishreview.net/GerryHassan172.shtml
Perhaps the statue should be based on Article 58 of Stalin's visionary penal code or just resort to charges as 'thought crimes'.
It *may* also be wise to prevent certain types of books getting to certain types of criminals.
But it is a wholly different matter to what these authors are doing.
"you, sir, are no gentlemen"
"is that supposed to be an insult?"
"I can think of none greater"
"buzz off you old man"
"what do I have to do to pick a fight with you, bring your mother into it?"
It's not really that relevant but it's great. And I do worry that we're completely incapable of seeing the difference between threat, intimidation, insult, whatever.
Dr. Spyn, never heard of religiously aggravated assault prior to that attack. It's as deranged as 'hate crime'. If you murder someone because they're black it doesn't make them more dead than if you do it because they slept with your wife. And if it's found to be 'hate crime' and later proven not to be, surely you'd get your sentence reduced?
Actions can be crimes, not attitudes.
If it can be sorted for the Scots in a matter of weeks it can be sorted for the English in a matter of months before the 2015 GE.That solves the problem of Scottish MP's in the event of yes vote in the transitional period to independence and in the event of a no vote stops Scottish MP's voting on English matters.
Time for those wanting a federal solution to start a petition before momentum for constitutional change is lost or ignored post May 2015 GE.
One other very important factor is that he has led a team which has run Scotland in the Scottish Pmt pretty well, and rather better than the previous Lab-LD coalition, despite active obstruction by Lab, LD and Tories during the first minority administration. By 'well', I mean they did it well enough to be elected with an increased vote, a significant number of whom will be voting No as we keep being told here.
He's also had the sense/confidence to establish/allow an even more popular successor in waiting - Nicola Sturgeon.
Apart from what that says about him, it also reassures people that the initial administration of an independent Scotland would be reasonably competent.
Now to see what is happening with his London oppos ...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/lib-dems-drug-policy-decriminalise-for-personal-use
I'm a bit worried that drug reform will be tarred by its association with the Lib Dems...
10/09/2014 09:20
“@GuidoFawkes: In The Times this morning Matthew Parris says Ted Heath was a closet homosexual.” Breaking...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/10/salmond-fear-mongering-pound-advantage-romance
However there are some very "dark" rumours about him out there if you know where to look....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29138322
Weirdly, it describes him as chairman, not president, of Ferrari. Was he both? Has he retained the presidency?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/italian-football-fans-abuse-milan-napoli
Your Indy predictions & insights on here have been some of the most hilariously half baked around; considering some of the competition, that's some going.
I think you fundamentally understand nationalism. There will be plenty of useful foreign scapegoats if things don't work out precisely to plan.
As for the first point, it is surely right that prisoners should be encouraged to engage in the life of contemplation while serving time, which, as Aristotle observes in Ethics Bk.X, is superior to the life of activity. That means reading. Unless a book is per se unlawful, as tending to stir up racial hatred or corrupting public morals for example, or otherwise undermines prison security, it should be permitted.
She tells it like it is.