I also see he has a persistent repetitive strain injury in his right hand, I can't say I am surprised.
He's not the party leader, is he? Also, that link is a newspaper's editorial rather than a factual report. 'May', 'might' ... suddenly what was probably a speculative chat over coffee becomes SNP party policy.
The Vow was reneged on within two hours of the result, as I recall. A supposedly unconditional promise, remember? (I agree it was idiotic whichever way anyone with any sense looked at it, but if you fib to win a referendum ...).
It is worth bearing in mind that the parties most enthusiastic, in practice, about Scottish MPs voting on supposedly English only matters are the Unionists: Labour [edit to correct punctuation], and to some extent the LDs who are in the ruling coalition. If Labour are forming a new government, they are presumably the biggest democratically elected party, and if they decide to keep doing things that way, what else is one supposed to think?
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
Mr. Financier, there's a very good (most recent) Lindy Beige video on that [he does mostly historical things], basically suggesting women in the past had power over internal/household matters and that men had external affairs (as it were), such as trade and war.
Thank you - will look for that.
In my experience the conditions you describe are still prevalent is lots of Africa, Asia and even the Americas.
The May-Cameron squabble (feud maybe overstates it) seems to be growing in intensity as Teresa positions herself to be the successor if Cameron is seen to have failed in May:
This seems quite smart - being the Cameron continuity candidate won't be a winning position if he's lost, and if he wins she's probably still strong enough to retain a serious post. And yet she would probably still get the Tory establishment vote over Boris.
That said, a Battallion of women soldiers would be able to defeat a Hannibal's army
(Probably because they had modern weapons and Hannibal had elephants and was crap)
(Oh and I'm being sarcastic, women in the infantry would be brilliant)
Believe that the Amazons and Boudica were quite formidable. BTW which male PBer can truthfully say that he is master in his own household?
I have always ironed my trousers and shirts - partly due to being an only child but also I have never found a lady who could do it properly - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough!
Miss Plato, maybe, but only for pragmatists. Those who think Braveheart is a documentary or that it only rains in Scotland because of English clouds will not let economic reality trouble them. Plus, the oil price will (probably) rise again sooner or later, and if it goes up it'll return to being a source of limitless prosperity and free unicorns.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
A friend came round the other day and I was transfixed by the crease in his jeans. I felt compelled to point it out and made disparaging remarks about fashion crimes - compounded by the fact that the crease was an inch off centre.
He blamed his Thai cleaning lady. And noted I was the only person rude enough to point it out!
That said, a Battallion of women soldiers would be able to defeat a Hannibal's army
(Probably because they had modern weapons and Hannibal had elephants and was crap)
(Oh and I'm being sarcastic, women in the infantry would be brilliant)
Believe that the Amazons and Boudica were quite formidable. BTW which male PBer can truthfully say that he is master in his own household?
I have always ironed my trousers and shirts - partly due to being an only child but also I have never found a lady who could do it properly - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough!
Mr. Financier, there's a very good (most recent) Lindy Beige video on that [he does mostly historical things], basically suggesting women in the past had power over internal/household matters and that men had external affairs (as it were), such as trade and war.
Thank you - will look for that.
In my experience the conditions you describe are still prevalent is lots of Africa, Asia and even the Americas.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
Apparently we're not attracting enough Roma gypsies, and this park is expected to appeal to them.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
Apparently we're not attracting enough Roma gypsies, and this park is expected to appeal to them.
Perhaps the 'Roma gypsies' will keep the badger watchers away... ; )
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.
I though it might be interesting to compare previous general election outcomes to what happened in the immediately preceding local elections. You may recall, the tories were 2% behind Labour in the 2014's
2009 locals - Con 38 Lab 23 2010 Gen - Con 36 Lab 29 change +8
2004 local - Con 37 Lab 30 2005 Gen - Con 32 Lab 35 Change + 10
2000 local - Con 32 Lab 30 2001 Gen - Con 31 Lab 40 Change +11
1996 local - Con 29 Lab 43 1997 Gen - Con 30 Lab 43 Change +1
1991 local - Con 35 Lab 38 1992 Gen - Con 41 Lab 34 Change +10
So in each of the last 5 general elections, the incumbant government has performed better in the subsequent general election than they did in the preceding local elections, the average improvement is 8% which, if replicated in 2015 would give the tories a 6% win.
Add to that the UKIP vote which has been minimal before and which, if it reduces from here, is likely to improve the tory vote more than the Labour vote, and you may begin to understand why tories aren't losing any sleep at the moment.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
No, it's a bridge. The clue is in its name. In reality, it will function neither as a useful bridge or a meaningful park: the restrictions on its usage for both purposes will prevent that. And what reason do we have to believe it will be a 'major new tourist attraction'?
It's a hideous waste of money, an archetypal boondoggle. Worse, there are so many other places in London that have much more of a need for a pedestrian/cycle crossing point.
I'd love to know what developments are allied to this farce...
Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
Vote SNP extract pork for Scotland. Vote Labour don't.
Utterly unsustainable of course, but understandable in the short term if you are Scottish.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
No, it's a bridge. The clue is in its name. In reality, it will function neither as a useful bridge or a meaningful park: the restrictions on its usage for both purposes will prevent that. And what reason do we have to believe it will be a 'major new tourist attraction'?
It's a hideous waste of money, an archetypal boondoggle. Worse, there are so many other places in London that have much more of a need for a pedestrian/cycle crossing point.
I'd love to know what developments are allied to this farce...
Can we take it then, Mr Jessop, that you’re against the project?
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It was, perhaps, a little exaggerated. ;-)
I love the idea that a meaningful, useful bridge has been okayed by our cycling-mad London mayor that will actively disallow cycling. And the group restrictions are just farcical.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
No, it's a bridge. The clue is in its name. In reality, it will function neither as a useful bridge or a meaningful park: the restrictions on its usage for both purposes will prevent that. And what reason do we have to believe it will be a 'major new tourist attraction'?
It's a hideous waste of money, an archetypal boondoggle. Worse, there are so many other places in London that have much more of a need for a pedestrian/cycle crossing point.
I'd love to know what developments are allied to this farce...
Can we take it then, Mr Jessop, that you’re against the project?
That said, a Battallion of women soldiers would be able to defeat a Hannibal's army
(Probably because they had modern weapons and Hannibal had elephants and was crap)
(Oh and I'm being sarcastic, women in the infantry would be brilliant)
Believe that the Amazons and Boudica were quite formidable. BTW which male PBer can truthfully say that he is master in his own household?
I have always ironed my trousers and shirts - partly due to being an only child but also I have never found a lady who could do it properly - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough!
Most males of my generation who were inducted into the armed services, learned two things; how to make a bed up and how to get that knife edge crease into your trousers.
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
It was, perhaps, a little exaggerated. ;-)
I love the idea that a meaningful, useful bridge has been okayed by our cycling-mad London mayor that will actively disallow cycling. And the group restrictions are just farcical.
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.
If this pays off (and it is still an 'if') then I might owe SeanT a friendly drink, as I was one of the most vociferous telling him it would not happen for many a year.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory. We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
There may come a time for Scotland to be independent, but I hope we can all recognise that we narrowly avoided disaster this year, whether you voted Yes or No, and I hope that we can also take away from this that we can’t accept what the SNP say at face value. We have to think as critically about their assertions as we would Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat announcements, and hold them to the same level of account.
Scotland is in a dangerous position democratically because the SNP and Labour are now the only two viable parties for a majority or even minority Government (No support for Tories, LibDems about to collapse, and the Greens whilst they will grow in size will not be the force that SLab or SNP are). Whilst that works broadly in the UK as despite rightwing press, Labour are important enough to be reported on when they criticise the Tories, and hold them to account. However, Labour are constantly being attacked and their views and policies (rightly) scrutinised.
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
It means that the SNP essentially can put out policies unopposed, and SLab are being tarred with the same brush in voters mind as the British Labour Party, meaning that it doesn’t get a boost from being in opposition, and so can’t effectively critique SNP policy, so the SNP end up in the circle of ongoing domination of Scotland. It’s dangerously undemocratic, and means that of course SNP are seeing membership surge; they sound like the only flawless party out there, because nobody actually points out their flaws. It’s a similar situation with UKIP where like the BNP they are experiencing a popularity surge, but unlike them, their policies and views are not being scrutinised fully.
We need the SNP to be held to the same accountability as their British peers, and papers, politicians and blogsters need to start pointing out that had we voted Yes this September, the SNP would have led us into economic disaster.
That’s what Scotland really needs to become a well-informed, affluent and successful country.
Evening Standard @standardnews Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.
If this pays off (and it is still an 'if') then I might owe SeanT a friendly drink, as I was one of the most vociferous telling him it would not happen for many a year.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
Evening Standard @standardnews Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa
I don't watch much telly with adverts - but saw one for Google pushing their voice recognition app. And another from Microsoft - I think they're collectively getting there after lots and lots of fails.
I wouldn't trust it myself - I could do something hideous by mouthing off! Like having a parrot/small child repeating all the things you didn't think outloud to a human!
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.
If this pays off (and it is still an 'if') then I might owe SeanT a friendly drink, as I was one of the most vociferous telling him it would not happen for many a year.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
Evening Standard @standardnews Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa
Still, it's a refreshing change to see Forage blaming something other than immigrants.
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory. We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
Evening Standard @standardnews Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa
Still, it's a refreshing change to see Forage blaming something other than immigrants.
There were a lot of immigrants in the council estate !
Mr. Eagles, there is a physiological argument against it, namely that women are likelier than mine to suffer injuries due to bearing heavy loads and that sort of thing. Hopefully the review will be objective, and not driven by sentiment one way or the other.
And, I've got to be honest, I think an elephant would win in a fight with a woman.
An elephant would struggle against a woman with a MLRS truck
Any man that's witnessed childbirth will know what crap all this 'weaker sex' stuff is.
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
I though it might be interesting to compare previous general election outcomes to what happened in the immediately preceding local elections. You may recall, the tories were 2% behind Labour in the 2014's.
[lots of stats]
So in each of the last 5 general elections, the incumbent government has performed better in the subsequent general election than they did in the preceding local elections, the average improvement is 8% which, if replicated in 2015 would give the tories a 6% win.
Add to that the UKIP vote which has been minimal before and which, if it reduces from here, is likely to improve the tory vote more than the Labour vote, and you may begin to understand why tories aren't losing any sleep at the moment.
You can also make a case for saying that the figures show that a lot of the Labour vote doesn't often get involved in local elections but wakes up for General Elections. And that the softer UKIP vote which came over more recently is from Labour.
I don't know, nor do you: no party should be sleeping soundly at the moment. But the pretty widespread expectation of a minority Labour government looks plausible.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.
Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
But is this not code for "I'll happily go against any principles I might have claimed to have had in the past to ensure I get the best deal possible for Scotland?"
I doubt to many people in Scotland would worry about any bitterness in England towards a Labour Government being propped up by the SNP on the basis that Scotland gets more money.
I think a Labour party that finished behind the Conservative Party in England and Wales would be out of its mind if it thought it could form a stable government with SNP backing.
Why? There's nothing that the electorate could do about it. Nothing.
Government would be hell, having to consult with the SNP on every issue. English and Welsh voters would massively resent being subordinated to a party that's committed to breaking up the UK. Labour's vote share in opinion polls and local elections would go below 20%. And, the party would take an absolute hammering in the subsequent general election.
I do wonder if the collapse in oil prices may save Labour's bacon, at least in part, up in Scotland. It makes a mockery of the SNP's " this time next year we'll all be millionaires, Rodney" economic plan.
I don't think that SNP support is primarily based on economics.
In fact, I think the impact of economic interests on voting intentions generally is overstated.
As far as I remember from the polls the majority of people votingfor independence thought they would be the same or worse off financially in an independent Scotland
Being a couple of hundred pounds better or worse off counts for little compared to being an independent nation, or preventing the break-up of the UK (depending on which side of the argument you're on).
Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
But is this not code for "I'll happily go against any principles I might have claimed to have had in the past to ensure I get the best deal possible for Scotland?"
I doubt to many people in Scotland would worry about any bitterness in England towards a Labour Government being propped up by the SNP on the basis that Scotland gets more money.
I think a Labour party that finished behind the Conservative Party in England and Wales would be out of its mind if it thought it could form a stable government with SNP backing.
Why? There's nothing that the electorate could do about it. Nothing.
Government would be hell, having to consult with the SNP on every issue. English and Welsh voters would massively resent being subordinated to a party that's committed to breaking up the UK. Labour's vote share in opinion polls and local elections would go below 20%. And, the party would take an absolute hammering in the subsequent general election.
Wishful thinking.
Deals can de done to keep the Scots onside. Add in a bit of gerrymandering, and a few million Labour friendly voters welcomed to the UK from overseas, and Ed's problems go away. He's not going to the let the precious slip from his grasp.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
True, Morris, though on balance I think I'd sooner fight on the front line than give birth.
Nice post Scotslad. I doubt even the stupidest SNPer can't see where they would now be had the vote gone the other way. It's hardly as though those on the NO side are holding back from telling them. That the SNP have cowed the opposition is largely the fault of the opposition being so pathetic. Hopefully Murphy will change that. The signs are good
Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
But is this not code for "I'll happily go against any principles I might have claimed to have had in the past to ensure I get the best deal possible for Scotland?"
I doubt to many people in Scotland would worry about any bitterness in England towards a Labour Government being propped up by the SNP on the basis that Scotland gets more money.
I think a Labour party that finished behind the Conservative Party in England and Wales would be out of its mind if it thought it could form a stable government with SNP backing.
Why? There's nothing that the electorate could do about it. Nothing.
Government would be hell, having to consult with the SNP on every issue. English and Welsh voters would massively resent being subordinated to a party that's committed to breaking up the UK. Labour's vote share in opinion polls and local elections would go below 20%. And, the party would take an absolute hammering in the subsequent general election.
I expect in those circumstances that Labour would look to have both the SNP and the Lib Dems broadly onside as a belt-and-braces approach to forming majorities. If so, a minority government would make more sense than a formal coalition, because the need to shift between the two as needs must would be far more awkward in a formal coalition.
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.
I think one out of every 20 polls is a rogue poll, we just happened to see two pollsters achieve the feat in less than 36 hours (three if you count Ipsos-Mori)
I think the current polling position is Labour ahead by about 2 points, and what we've seen is consistent with that.
The big uncertainty is the Green share of the vote, if I were a Tory donor, I'd defect to the Greens, and offer to fund a green candidate in every seat.
One of the things I've learnt from Mike and Sir Bob Worcestor is not to focus upon the lead, but the share of the vote, at best Labour are on 35%, oppositions seldom go up in the last months of a parliament, and generally go down, and the the Tory share of the vote around 30% isn't ideal but the marginals polling indicated that the Tories are on course to win the popular vote.
Mr. Eagles, there is a physiological argument against it, namely that women are likelier than mine to suffer injuries due to bearing heavy loads and that sort of thing. Hopefully the review will be objective, and not driven by sentiment one way or the other.
And, I've got to be honest, I think an elephant would win in a fight with a woman.
An elephant would struggle against a woman with a MLRS truck
Any man that's witnessed childbirth will know what crap all this 'weaker sex' stuff is.
What does childbirth have to do with physical strength or endurance?
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.
The internal numbers for Yougov's poll had the Conservative retention rate well below average (for Yougov) at 69%. That may be the start of a trend, but I doubt it.
Nice post Scotslad. I doubt even the stupidest SNPer can't see where they would now be had the vote gone the other way. It's hardly as though those on the NO side are holding back from telling them. That the SNP have cowed the opposition is largely the fault of the opposition being so pathetic. Hopefully Murphy will change that. The signs are good
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.
Oh... wait.
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds). First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
FWIW I think the Unionist parties should now simply call the SNP's bluff. We should harmonise spending levels across the UK. For Scotland that means significantly deeper cuts than average. BFD. Let them wail. Let them have another referendum reasonably soon if they wish. The practical choice they would then face is equality or armageddon. The currency issue remains unsolvable. The oil money tree is bare of fruit. They are a recipient region of the UK that enjoys unwarranted advantages (such as free uni) thanks only to the continued safety net and largesse and uncomplaining goodwill of the rest of the country. That may not last the way the Nats are going.
Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.
Oh... wait.
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds). First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
Only if they view their female squadmates as delicate flowers to be protected. After being hoofed in the nuts a couple of times for that attitude, I suspect the team will gel perfectly well, and the necessary trust and inter-dependency will develop.
[anyway, morale is hit whenever you lose a soldier, irrespective of gender]
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.
Oh... wait.
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds). First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
I'm not entirely sure why you think your opinion is of any note.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
Surely you need to be careful with such figures? They are averages, and AIUI strength follows bell curves: you get most people bunched up into the middle, and fewer at either end (i.e. very weak or strong) (*). There will be many untrained women who are strong enough to perform the roles; but the percentage of women capable of doing it will be less than for men.
Add in strength training, and more women will be able to pass. We had the same argument over women firefighters a few years back: I say let them do the job as long as they pass all the same tests as men, and those tests are role-oriented.
KLE4's / SeanF's argument below about unit cohesiveness seems much more valid IMHO; research would be needed.
As an aside, I sometimes feel as though I am the last of the heavyweight backpackers: I carry a lot of stuff and have eschewed the lightweight trend. However I know a few women who can carry heavier loads than myself further whilst hiking. In this, I think my height is to my detriment.
(*) Although some claim it is a power curve rather than a bell curve.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
Apparently the Army feel any affect on unit cohesion would not be adverse, so I suppose the answer is no.
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.
Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.
There were plenty of women in Afghanistan more than capable of killing, torturing and maiming enemy soldiers during the Soviet occupation.
I've a very black and white attitude to almost everything. So I'd be ripe for such stuff. I don't think I'm terribly representative of females generally - so shrink from parading as one. But if there are others out there like me - well, not to be messed with.
Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.
Oh... wait.
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds). First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
I'm not entirely sure why you think your opinion is of any note.
Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.
There were plenty of women in Afghanistan more than capable of killing, torturing and maiming enemy soldiers during the Soviet occupation.
It's a cultural thing. In some societies, handing captured enemies over to the women to be tortured to death is a special form of punishment.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
They were indeed on the front line in NI, are indispensable in general in COIN ops, and perform magnificently and bravely.
However, that is different from war fighting.
I am not 100% convinced a war fighting unit would want to have women out on patrol where they knew they were going to be contacted (as has been the case in Afghan and Iraq) with all that that entails.
Not for lack of guts or determination but simple physical strength.
(Edit: but I am waay out of date - perhaps someone can comment with recent experience as to whether this view is different to current thinking/experience)
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
Apparently the Army feel any affect on unit cohesion would not be adverse, so I suppose the answer is no.
Overall, their response seems to be a bit ambiguous. Some armies (like the Soviets who did field women in large numbers) have concluded that casualties inflicted on women have an adverse impact on morale, over and above what one would expect.
If the army really does conclude there is no problem (and isn't just bowing to political pressure) that's fine.
One area where Hollywood gets it totally wrong is to portray fighting women as warrior princesses. A woman who fights on the front line will need the same sort of physique as a man who does so.
From what little experience I have working with the infantry; I suspect the retention rate from pregnancies amongst serving female ‘infantrypersons’ will rival that of the navy.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
Apparently the Army feel any affect on unit cohesion would not be adverse, so I suppose the answer is no.
Overall, their response seems to be a bit ambiguous. Some armies (like the Soviets who did field women in large numbers) have concluded that casualties inflicted on women have an adverse impact on morale, over and above what one would expect.
If the army really does conclude there is no problem (and isn't just bowing to political pressure) that's fine.
One area where Hollywood gets it totally wrong is to portray fighting women as warrior princesses. A woman who fights on the front line will need the same sort of physique as a man who does so.
Just taken £20 of Ed Miliband next PM next PM at 2.34 on Betfair - If we regard Lab most seats as Evens (I think the true price is 1.9 perhaps) and add in the fact that the SNP are alot warmer to Labour than the Conservatives (And Lab may be denied most seats by an SNP surgethen this is a proxy and a "bit extra" to Lab most seats - add in the risk for Ed Miliband going before the next GE which must be at least 10-1 and the true odds I make at 2.15 or so thus making 2.32 value.
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.
I think one out of every 20 polls is a rogue poll, we just happened to see two pollsters achieve the feat in less than 36 hours (three if you count Ipsos-Mori)
I think the current polling position is Labour ahead by about 2 points, and what we've seen is consistent with that.
The big uncertainty is the Green share of the vote, if I were a Tory donor, I'd defect to the Greens, and offer to fund a green candidate in every seat.
One of the things I've learnt from Mike and Sir Bob Worcestor is not to focus upon the lead, but the share of the vote, at best Labour are on 35%, oppositions seldom go up in the last months of a parliament, and generally go down, and the the Tory share of the vote around 30% isn't ideal but the marginals polling indicated that the Tories are on course to win the popular vote.
The odds of 3 rogue polls (Surely 4 if you count today's TNS-BRMB) are 1 in 8,000 or 1 in 160,000... whereas the odds of 1 rogue poll out of 4 are ~ in 1 in 6 or so.
Having seen women playing hockey, I have no doubt that they would acquit themselves commendably on the frontline of any warzone.
Girls & Hockey make St Trinians look tame...
My mother (a nurse) had story from her hockey playing days: When the opposition had a particularly dirty player, my mother ordered a someone to take her out. Which they did. After the game my mother was in the operating theatre having to help pin & plate the resulting broken leg.
And I have firsthand experience from a mixed hockey match one games lesson. The boys were basically treating the game (then a novel experience) as football with sticks and were not being too careful about clipping ankles or outright taking peoples legs from under them. One girl took offence to being whacked clumsily on the ankles and swatted the offender around the head with her stick & laid him out cold...
Comments
The actual article (I presume) is quite opaque on the context. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-hints-at-scottish-votes-for-english-laws-9934542.html
The Vow was reneged on within two hours of the result, as I recall. A supposedly unconditional promise, remember? (I agree it was idiotic whichever way anyone with any sense looked at it, but if you fib to win a referendum ...).
It is worth bearing in mind that the parties most enthusiastic, in practice, about Scottish MPs voting on supposedly English only matters are the Unionists: Labour [edit to correct punctuation], and to some extent the LDs who are in the ruling coalition. If Labour are forming a new government, they are presumably the biggest democratically elected party, and if they decide to keep doing things that way, what else is one supposed to think?
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
In my experience the conditions you describe are still prevalent is lots of Africa, Asia and even the Americas.
http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/18997733ec258a9fcaf239cc55d53363.html
This seems quite smart - being the Cameron continuity candidate won't be a winning position if he's lost, and if he wins she's probably still strong enough to retain a serious post. And yet she would probably still get the Tory establishment vote over Boris.
I have always ironed my trousers and shirts - partly due to being an only child but also I have never found a lady who could do it properly - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough!
Mr. Financier, here's the videos page [two latest are both on women]:
https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige/videos
RIP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30547066
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
He blamed his Thai cleaning lady. And noted I was the only person rude enough to point it out!
YTD deficit is £75.8bn (last year £76.3bn)
By the time all the revisions (usually improvements) filter through the whole 2014/2015 deficit will be £80-90bn - a primary deficit of £30-40bn.
I'd guess that there are some civil servants being told to get their revisions through more quickly than they have done previously.
Osborne won't want the £10bn worth of improvements showing up a year late and after the election. He needs them now.
2009 locals - Con 38 Lab 23
2010 Gen - Con 36 Lab 29
change +8
2004 local - Con 37 Lab 30
2005 Gen - Con 32 Lab 35
Change + 10
2000 local - Con 32 Lab 30
2001 Gen - Con 31 Lab 40
Change +11
1996 local - Con 29 Lab 43
1997 Gen - Con 30 Lab 43
Change +1
1991 local - Con 35 Lab 38
1992 Gen - Con 41 Lab 34
Change +10
So in each of the last 5 general elections, the incumbant government has performed better in the subsequent general election than they did in the preceding local elections, the average improvement is 8% which, if replicated in 2015 would give the tories a 6% win.
Add to that the UKIP vote which has been minimal before and which, if it reduces from here, is likely to improve the tory vote more than the Labour vote, and you may begin to understand why tories aren't losing any sleep at the moment.
It's a hideous waste of money, an archetypal boondoggle. Worse, there are so many other places in London that have much more of a need for a pedestrian/cycle crossing point.
I'd love to know what developments are allied to this farce...
Utterly unsustainable of course, but understandable in the short term if you are Scottish.
Hopefully the pay rises are starting to appear.
I love the idea that a meaningful, useful bridge has been okayed by our cycling-mad London mayor that will actively disallow cycling. And the group restrictions are just farcical.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
*Sandy's Hunch for Actual Votes in the Election
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory.
We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
There may come a time for Scotland to be independent, but I hope we can all recognise that we narrowly avoided disaster this year, whether you voted Yes or No, and I hope that we can also take away from this that we can’t accept what the SNP say at face value. We have to think as critically about their assertions as we would Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat announcements, and hold them to the same level of account.
Scotland is in a dangerous position democratically because the SNP and Labour are now the only two viable parties for a majority or even minority Government (No support for Tories, LibDems about to collapse, and the Greens whilst they will grow in size will not be the force that SLab or SNP are). Whilst that works broadly in the UK as despite rightwing press, Labour are important enough to be reported on when they criticise the Tories, and hold them to account. However, Labour are constantly being attacked and their views and policies (rightly) scrutinised.
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
It means that the SNP essentially can put out policies unopposed, and SLab are being tarred with the same brush in voters mind as the British Labour Party, meaning that it doesn’t get a boost from being in opposition, and so can’t effectively critique SNP policy, so the SNP end up in the circle of ongoing domination of Scotland. It’s dangerously undemocratic, and means that of course SNP are seeing membership surge; they sound like the only flawless party out there, because nobody actually points out their flaws. It’s a similar situation with UKIP where like the BNP they are experiencing a popularity surge, but unlike them, their policies and views are not being scrutinised fully.
We need the SNP to be held to the same accountability as their British peers, and papers, politicians and blogsters need to start pointing out that had we voted Yes this September, the SNP would have led us into economic disaster.
That’s what Scotland really needs to become a well-informed, affluent and successful country.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
Ars technica used it and said it was amazing
I wouldn't trust it myself - I could do something hideous by mouthing off! Like having a parrot/small child repeating all the things you didn't think outloud to a human! If this pays off (and it is still an 'if') then I might owe SeanT a friendly drink, as I was one of the most vociferous telling him it would not happen for many a year.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
Merry Union Christmas.
The vow was, is and will be honoured in full (a concept the SNP would do well to mimic)
"Once in a generation..."
There were a lot of immigrants in the council estate !
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
I don't know, nor do you: no party should be sleeping soundly at the moment. But the pretty widespread expectation of a minority Labour government looks plausible.
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
Deals can de done to keep the Scots onside. Add in a bit of gerrymandering, and a few million Labour friendly voters welcomed to the UK from overseas, and Ed's problems go away. He's not going to the let the precious slip from his grasp.
Oh... wait.
Eck says he would prop up Ed Miliband
Nobody thinks Ed can do it on his own...
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.
I think the current polling position is Labour ahead by about 2 points, and what we've seen is consistent with that.
The big uncertainty is the Green share of the vote, if I were a Tory donor, I'd defect to the Greens, and offer to fund a green candidate in every seat.
One of the things I've learnt from Mike and Sir Bob Worcestor is not to focus upon the lead, but the share of the vote, at best Labour are on 35%, oppositions seldom go up in the last months of a parliament, and generally go down, and the the Tory share of the vote around 30% isn't ideal but the marginals polling indicated that the Tories are on course to win the popular vote.
Anyway actual scientific research shows women also have a lower threshold for pain.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160
"Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - ........... why shouldn't they serve? "
They're letting them drive double decker busses in London. Far more dangerous in my opinion than letting them fire bazookas in Afghanistan.
First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
The Devils in Skirts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-3dqb1izAo
FWIW I think the Unionist parties should now simply call the SNP's bluff. We should harmonise spending levels across the UK. For Scotland that means significantly deeper cuts than average. BFD. Let them wail. Let them have another referendum reasonably soon if they wish. The practical choice they would then face is equality or armageddon. The currency issue remains unsolvable. The oil money tree is bare of fruit. They are a recipient region of the UK that enjoys unwarranted advantages (such as free uni) thanks only to the continued safety net and largesse and uncomplaining goodwill of the rest of the country. That may not last the way the Nats are going.
I'm not entirely sure where your bravado is coming from. The SNP is now a three-legged stool with two legs.
[anyway, morale is hit whenever you lose a soldier, irrespective of gender]
Add in strength training, and more women will be able to pass. We had the same argument over women firefighters a few years back: I say let them do the job as long as they pass all the same tests as men, and those tests are role-oriented.
KLE4's / SeanF's argument below about unit cohesiveness seems much more valid IMHO; research would be needed.
As an aside, I sometimes feel as though I am the last of the heavyweight backpackers: I carry a lot of stuff and have eschewed the lightweight trend. However I know a few women who can carry heavier loads than myself further whilst hiking. In this, I think my height is to my detriment.
(*) Although some claim it is a power curve rather than a bell curve.
I've a very black and white attitude to almost everything. So I'd be ripe for such stuff. I don't think I'm terribly representative of females generally - so shrink from parading as one. But if there are others out there like me - well, not to be messed with.
However, that is different from war fighting.
I am not 100% convinced a war fighting unit would want to have women out on patrol where they knew they were going to be contacted (as has been the case in Afghan and Iraq) with all that that entails.
Not for lack of guts or determination but simple physical strength.
(Edit: but I am waay out of date - perhaps someone can comment with recent experience as to whether this view is different to current thinking/experience)
If the army really does conclude there is no problem (and isn't just bowing to political pressure) that's fine.
One area where Hollywood gets it totally wrong is to portray fighting women as warrior princesses. A woman who fights on the front line will need the same sort of physique as a man who does so.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.
If they are on the ground they need to be infantry-trained although the infantry would usually be expected to provide a cordon/cover.
What do you reckon would be the result of England men's rugby vs women's rugby?
200 to nil? 300 to nil?
My mother (a nurse) had story from her hockey playing days: When the opposition had a particularly dirty player, my mother ordered a someone to take her out. Which they did. After the game my mother was in the operating theatre having to help pin & plate the resulting broken leg.
And I have firsthand experience from a mixed hockey match one games lesson. The boys were basically treating the game (then a novel experience) as football with sticks and were not being too careful about clipping ankles or outright taking peoples legs from under them. One girl took offence to being whacked clumsily on the ankles and swatted the offender around the head with her stick & laid him out cold...