Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
British History.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar. It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier. Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness. There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
So how did WW2 start on Planet Malcolm? Do pray tell!
Interesting to note that one of the regiments stationed on Iceland in 1940 onwards during this "apparent invasion" was the Black Watch Royal Highland Regiment stationed just outside Reykjavick.
In 1941 Iceland was a dependent of the Kingdom-of-Denmark. As the Germans' - call them any label but they identified as 'Der Duetsche Volk' - had invaded the neutral Kingdom-of-Denmark (maybe still angry about 1864 and such) Danish territory was occupied.*
No doubt Churchill will have sanctioned this with consort of the US, The Dominions, The Royal Norwegian Family (and other inter-related families). As soon as we took it we focused our resources on places we were more strategically useful (and so handed it over to the Septics). The act was an act of liberation.
Bits of Norway were also consumed (by RM Commandos). I have no doubts that routes were also explored through the Sahara (albeit outwith Libya and Egypt) during the war. These were not occupations.
This discussion may please the childish pranks of Lord Sunil's procreations: History is a set of facts however. Recording them accurately is difficult.... **
* The Septics had no problem invading Vichy-France (not least once the Commonwealth had painfully routed the DAK.
** Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands were neutral. The Yugoslav refusal to submit to National-Socialism - followong a revolution - caused such mayhem and murder that we are still facing future Balken Wars. All were invaded by Germany (though I cannot comment on the SNP response).
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.
Many International lawyers! Perhaps you might like to explain in what way such people might be mistaken.
Interesting to note that one of the regiments stationed on Iceland in 1940 onwards during this "apparent invasion" was the Black Watch Royal Highland Regiment stationed just outside Reykjavick.
Oh well....
Worth mentioning that the British force in Iceland "surrendered" to the massive USA "invasion" forces in 1941.
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
British History.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar. It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier. Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness. There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
So how did WW2 start on Planet Malcolm? Do pray tell!
I do not have all day to educate you on the finer points of 20th century history, it for sure was not Germany invading Poland for sure.
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.
Many International lawyers! Perhaps you might like to explain in what way such people might be mistaken.
The solution is simple. Force FFA on Scotland whether Sturgeon wants it or not. This idea that Scotland would try and undercut the UK tax rate is fanciful as they have a massive budget deficit without rUK subsidies. Move Trident down to Portsmouth as well and the Vanguard class replacement submarine production down here too.
The best thing to do is give them what they fear, no subsidies.
150-200 member unicameral UK Parliament, dealing with defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy (maybe 5-10% of government spending). Explicit sovereignty vested in the UK Parliament, as now. 3-400 member unicameral English Parliament, based in York or Manchester or somewhere and dealing with everything else Scottish, Welsh and NI Parliaments as now, also dealing with everything else.
Disputes between them adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
We'd go from being one of the most centralised democractic countries to one of the least.
The idea of having a national parliament based in anywhere other than London is a cantankerous and obscurantist abomination.
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.
Name three. And how's that hope for Tory MPs to die coming along for you?
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
British History.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar. It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier. Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness. There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
So how did WW2 start on Planet Malcolm? Do pray tell!
I do not have all day to educate you on the finer points of 20th century history, it for sure was not Germany invading Poland for sure.
So you're saying that at school you were taught that it was Poland invading Germany?
150-200 member unicameral UK Parliament, dealing with defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy (maybe 5-10% of government spending). Explicit sovereignty vested in the UK Parliament, as now. 3-400 member unicameral English Parliament, based in York or Manchester or somewhere and dealing with everything else Scottish, Welsh and NI Parliaments as now, also dealing with everything else.
Disputes between them adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
We'd go from being one of the most centralised democractic countries to one of the least.
The idea of having a national parliament based in anywhere other than London is a cantankerous and obscurantist abomination.
The solution is simple. Force FFA on Scotland whether Sturgeon wants it or not. This idea that Scotland would try and undercut the UK tax rate is fanciful as they have a massive budget deficit without rUK subsidies. Move Trident down to Portsmouth as well and the Vanguard class replacement submarine production down here too.
The best thing to do is give them what they fear, no subsidies.
The solution is simple. Force FFA on Scotland whether Sturgeon wants it or not. This idea that Scotland would try and undercut the UK tax rate is fanciful as they have a massive budget deficit without rUK subsidies. Move Trident down to Portsmouth as well and the Vanguard class replacement submarine production down here too.
The best thing to do is give them what they fear, no subsidies.
LOL, lucky you did not have to stand on your own two feet when job hunting then.
I refer you to the Nuremberg Trial of 1945/1946. Several defence counsel for the indicted Nazis made this point. I would suggest it is fairly obvious - but we continue to resent having our hypocrisy exposed to the world at large as evidenced by condemning Russia re- the Ukraine but a few years following British aggression in Iraq.
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
GDP.
.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
British History.
military history?
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar. It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier. Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness. There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
So how did WW2 start on Planet Malcolm? Do pray tell!
I do not have all day to educate you on the finer points of 20th century history, it for sure was not Germany invading Poland for sure.
So you're saying that at school you were taught that it was Poland invading Germany?
Read your own post , rather than thinking you are smart.
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.
As unfortunate as it was it had to be done.
Without Iceland under the control of the UK the war would have been lost within the first two years. It also would have had serious implications for the Russian front after hitters invasion.
Iceland was key to many facets of the war very much like Malta. Yes the Icelanders preferred to be left alone but their geographical position and strategic importance prevented that and another Norway could not be allowed to occur. They did prefer a British occupation to a German one though.
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
British History.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
So how did WW2 start on Planet Malcolm? Do pray tell!
I do not have all day to educate you on the finer points of 20th century history, it for sure was not Germany invading Poland for sure.
Interesting to note that one of the regiments stationed on Iceland in 1940 onwards during this "apparent invasion" was the Black Watch Royal Highland Regiment stationed just outside Reykjavick.
Oh well....
Worth mentioning that the British force in Iceland "surrendered" to the massive USA "invasion" forces in 1941.
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.
Name three. And how's that hope for Tory MPs to die coming along for you?
Be patient - only 2% of this Parliament has passed.
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
GDP.
.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
British History.
military history?
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar. It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier. Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness. There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
So how did WW2 start on Planet Malcolm? Do pray tell!
I do not have all day to educate you on the finer points of 20th century history, it for sure was not Germany invading Poland for sure.
So you're saying that at school you were taught that it was Poland invading Germany?
Read your own post , rather than thinking you are smart.
The Germans started - it they invaded Poland. Or was it the other way round on Planet Malcolm?
The solution is simple. Force FFA on Scotland whether Sturgeon wants it or not. This idea that Scotland would try and undercut the UK tax rate is fanciful as they have a massive budget deficit without rUK subsidies. Move Trident down to Portsmouth as well and the Vanguard class replacement submarine production down here too.
The best thing to do is give them what they fear, no subsidies.
The Gib government have welcomed being on the MoDs shortlist as an alternative Trident site and their internal report said that it would be the cheapest and quickest place to upgrade.
Relocation costs will be at a minimum as the SNP must be right when they say that only eight jobs in the whole of Scotland depend on the thing.
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.
Name three. And how's that hope for Tory MPs to die coming along for you?
Be patient - only 2% of this Parliament has passed.
Statistically we should have had a flesh wound by now.
I refer you to the Nuremberg Trial of 1945/1946. Several defence counsel for the indicted Nazis made this point. I would suggest it is fairly obvious - but we continue to resent having our hypocrisy exposed to the world at large as evidenced by condemning Russia re- the Ukraine but a few years following British aggression in Iraq.
The Norwegians resisted German occupation (in the opening hours of the 1940 invasion they even sank a German heavy cruiser outside Oslo), and the Danes to a lesser extent, though this picked up after 1943.
Did the Icelanders resist British, and later American, occupation?
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.
As unfortunate as it was it had to be done.
Without Iceland under the control of the UK the war would have been lost within the first two years. It also would have had serious implications for the Russian front after hitters invasion.
Iceland was key to many facets of the war very much like Malta. Yes the Icelanders preferred to be left alone but their geographical position and strategic importance prevented that and another Norway could not be allowed to occur. They did prefer a British occupation to a German one though.
Indeed - but Germany could - and did - argue the same regarding its invasion of Norway to safeguard its ore supplies.
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
GDP.
.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
British History.
military history?
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar. It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier. Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness. There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter .
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
So how did WW2 start on Planet Malcolm? Do pray tell!
I do not have all day to educate you on the finer points of 20th century history, it for sure was not Germany invading Poland for sure.
So you're saying that at school you were taught that it was Poland invading Germany?
Read your own post , rather than thinking you are smart.
The Germans started - it they invaded Poland. Or was it the other way round on Planet Malcolm?
I think malcolm must still believe Goebbels version of this incident:
Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
£3.5bn a year for Defense
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
As unfortunate as it was it had to be done.
Without Iceland under the control of the UK the war would have been lost within the first two years. It also would have had serious implications for the Russian front after hitters invasion.
Iceland was key to many facets of the war very much like Malta. Yes the Icelanders preferred to be left alone but their geographical position and strategic importance prevented that and another Norway could not be allowed to occur. They did prefer a British occupation to a German one though.
Indeed - but Germany could - and did - argue the same regarding its invasion of Norway to safeguard its ore supplies.
"Did the Icelanders resist British, and later American, occupation?"
I remember reading something about either Iceland or Faroe islanders doing a non-cooperation thing and also untying moored vessels and refusing to speak English. But once they saw how the war was going, they realised it wasn't *that* bad.
The wars of the Twentieth-Century all relate to one thing: The wealth of the Engurlish (and their Oirish cousins)! It only took mighty Rome a century (and two invasions) to succeed!
They even went oop-Norf to Caledonia - a desolate place full of ineffectual warring-tribes - beat the living-daylights-out-of-them and built a wall. Then they looked over their shoulders and decided to pi5h-0rf-sarf.
Then the Angles invaded Northumberia and created Edinbourough. Not long later the eScoti were politely asked to leave Ulster (as polite as a spear-point can be) and they duly ran.
Move forward a couple-of-hundred years and you will find that the Scandis had learnt enough about piracy as to - with evil-helpers - attack the wealth of Northumbria and Mercia. All was well until the West/Southern-Sexes beat the beejus out of TFMFs. Wessex then took on any Norse-Celt trotter for a few centuries.
Eventually things when bad: As any watcher of [a] 'Dynasty' would know! As a result there was a strong Norse/Dane in Normandy who got lucky on a battlefield: His prize the greatest wealth in the former Roman-Empire: England....
"Did the Icelanders resist British, and later American, occupation?"
I remember reading something about either Iceland or Faroe islanders doing a non-cooperation thing and also untying moored vessels and refusing to speak English. But once they saw how the war was going, they realised it wasn't *that* bad.
"Did the Icelanders resist British, and later American, occupation?"
I remember reading something about either Iceland or Faroe islanders doing a non-cooperation thing and also untying moored vessels and refusing to speak English. But once they saw how the war was going, they realised it wasn't *that* bad.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
Been out all day..very pleasant shopping trip to a 15th century Italian town, great winee, food, nice people..came back to find MG in a total mental meltdown..Think I will go and mow the lawn.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progress[i]ve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
You are of course free to see it as you see fit but that doesn't necessarily mean that your perception corresponds with the reality of either the theory or practice.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
A sensible Conservative wishes to see wealth spread out, rather than concentrated, as it gives people a stake in maintaining the social order.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
I think the genius of the British ruling classes from Whig and Tory times to thd present day is to be sufficiently flexible to absorb new ideas and people at a sufficient rate that the status quo is maintaind. Evolution rather than revolution. It is why the monarchy of Britain (and the Low Countries and Scandanavia) and supporting aristocracy have survived, while the absolute monarchies of Cental and Eastern Europe are history. I agree with DH on the condensed conservative world view.
It is those who refuse to bent that wind up breaking.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
So the Soviet Union was really Conservative?
Gorbachev's opponents, like supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini, were often referred to as "conservatives."
Good piece by David, I think letting Scotland experiment with having control over the economic levers to try and grow the economy is the way to go. You never know Scotland may actually make it work.
I'm despairing about the Unionists parties "strategy" at the moment, my twitter feed has been melting down over the last few days with carpet bombing by Kezia, Blair McD, John McT, Ruth, LibDems and virtually all of the MSM, about Scotland being an economic basket case. They backup their case with endless graphs from IFS and a site called Chokkablog, then retweet each others stories between themselves. I think Scotland started off as Greece on Wednesday, by Thursday we were Argentina and by last night we were Zimbabwe.
Suffice to say whatever the facts of the matter, SLAB have been spinning this line for the last 6 months and it has taken them from polling 27% down to 19%, should they continue with "Plan A" they'll be at 15% before long.
Also worth noting that the IFS is a right wing think tank not the Delphi Oracle. Is this the same IFS which was roundly criticized by all parties after their manifesto analysis? We live in an uncertain world, for example should ISIS continue to expand it’s influence across the Middle East and disrupt oil supplies to the West, what then for the price of oil?
I think Unionist parties need a "Plan B" and quick, they need to start being much more positive about Scotland and it's prospects, where is the Better Together vision for Scotland?
In terms of SLAB leadership, I don't think Kezia is the answer, particularly if she is seen as Murphy's appointee. SLAB need to stop demonising the SNP and the 60% of Scots now supporting them, instead of blaming others SLAB needs to take responsibility for its own failure. As for kicking out SLAB members who voted for the SNP, how is that going to help attract folks back to SLAB?
Good piece by David, I think letting Scotland experiment with having control over the economic levers to try and grow the economy is the way to go. You never know Scotland may actually make it work.
I'm despairing about the Unionists parties "strategy" at the moment, my twitter feed has been melting down over the last few days with carpet bombing by Kezia, Blair McD, John McT, Ruth, LibDems and virtually all of the MSM, about Scotland being an economic basket case. They backup their case with endless graphs from IFS and a site called Chokkablog, then retweet each others stories between themselves. I think Scotland started off as Greece on Wednesday, by Thursday we were Argentina and by last night we were Zimbabwe.
Suffice to say whatever the facts of the matter, SLAB have been spinning this line for the last 6 months and it has taken them from polling 27% down to 19%, should they continue with "Plan A" they'll be at 15% before long.
Also worth noting that the IFS is a right wing think tank not the Delphi Oracle. Is this the same IFS which was roundly criticized by all parties after their manifesto analysis? We live in an uncertain world, for example should ISIS continue to expand it’s influence across the Middle East and disrupt oil supplies to the West, what then for the price of oil?
I think Unionist parties need a "Plan B" and quick, they need to start being much more positive about Scotland and it's prospects, where is the Better Together vision for Scotland?
In terms of SLAB leadership, I don't think Kezia is the answer, particularly if she is seen as Murphy's appointee. SLAB need to stop demonising the SNP and the 60% of Scots now supporting them, instead of blaming others SLAB needs to take responsibility for its own failure. As for kicking out SLAB members who voted for the SNP, how is that going to help attract folks back to SLAB?
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
I think the genius of the British ruling classes from Whig and Tory times to thd present day is to be sufficiently flexible to absorb new ideas and people at a sufficient rate that the status quo is maintaind. Evolution rather than revolution. It is why the monarchy of Britain (and the Low Countries and Scandanavia) and supporting aristocracy have survived, while the absolute monarchies of Cental and Eastern Europe are history. I agree with DH on the condensed conservative world view.
It is those who refuse to bent that wind up breaking.
I think British Conservatism enabled the upper, and upper middle classes, to retain a great deal of power and all of their wealth, by co-opting rising groups.
Unless you have a complete idiot squandering the family fortune, upper class families remain very very rich.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
You make it sound so black and white, and to an extent that is understandable given the way history of the period is presented.
But it's not black and white.
We sided with Stalin (who murdered about 10 to 15million noncombatants) against Hitler (who murdered about 14million noncombatants).
Overall, it probably was the right decision but that does not then justify a number of the less glorious acts (such as Iceland and less clear cut Mers-el-Kébir) which occurred during the war.
I hate to stick my fingers into the lightsocket of debate with the trusty screwdriver of truth (Ah-Haaaa!) but to clarify certain matters as follows.
Who started WW2? The Germans (at least the European theatre). Not Hitler, not the Nazi Party, not the Waffen SS, the Germans. Populations hold a collective responsibility for their governments: it is never someone else's fault, it is always yours in this matter. If you don't think this is true, pick up a gun and start assassinating until they kill you back.
Was the various Allied invasions of Iceland a good thing? Yes, it was: it enabled the Icelandic people to go about their business unmolested and ungenocided by a German invasion force.
Was the British invasion of Iceland legal? Yes it was, at least in British law: as expounded in previous posts, I don't think international law exists (if you disagree with that latter point, please hold off the discussion for another day). I don't know if it was legal in Icelandic law, whether contemporaneous or retrospective.
Having clarified your discussion with Revealed Truth, you may go about your business in a more productive manner. Evening all, (walks away whistling...:-))
FFA is tempting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes EVEL much more straightforward, the SNP may even back it on a quid pro quo basis. Secondly, the infantilisation of Scottish politics, which is completely dominated by the competition of how many sweeties are in the jar, would stop if responsibility for purchasing those sweeties stopped with the Scottish Parliament. Thirdly, it will increase the strains in the SNP alliance between those well to the left of Nicola and those like Swinney who border on being sensible.
Why then, do I have reservations? It seems to me that it is another untying of the knots that bind us. I opposed devolution on that basis. I thought that those who argued for it and claimed it would reduce the pressure for independence (like Dewar) were painfully naïve.
Untying our fiscal links makes the next step to independence much more straightforward. It may well demonstrate that the absurd land of milk and honey in that ridiculous White Paper (a document that went well beyond fantasy into deep dishonesty) was nothing more than a fantasy but it would also make the choices more concrete, more real and remove most of the uncertainty.
And those who believe it would stop the moaning are as deluded as the Nationalists. We see, even on this thread, that we would still face absurd arguments about how Scotland should not pay its share of the debt interest or for its own defence. I think FFA is playing with fire every bit as much as devolution was. Unionists should be very careful.
In many cases, it appears to take three generations to complete the cycle with family money outside the aristos. It's the old trope of self-made-man, offspring takes over, grandchild trusties or brat with entitlement issues spends it and business fails/taken over by another.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
I think the genius of the British ruling classes from Whig and Tory times to thd present day is to be sufficiently flexible to absorb new ideas and people at a sufficient rate that the status quo is maintaind. Evolution rather than revolution. It is why the monarchy of Britain (and the Low Countries and Scandanavia) and supporting aristocracy have survived, while the absolute monarchies of Cental and Eastern Europe are history. I agree with DH on the condensed conservative world view.
It is those who refuse to bent that wind up breaking.
I think British Conservatism enabled the upper, and upper middle classes, to retain a great deal of power and all of their wealth, by co-opting rising groups.
Unless you have a complete idiot squandering the family fortune, upper class families remain very very rich.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
You make it sound so black and white, and to an extent that is understandable given the way history of the period is presented.
But it's not black and white.
We sided with Stalin (who murdered about 10 to 15million noncombatants) against Hitler (who murdered about 14million noncombatants).
Overall, it probably was the right decision but that does not then justify a number of the less glorious acts (such as Iceland and less clear cut Mers-el-Kébir) which occurred during the war.
Britain had already sided against Hitler before Stalin became involved. In fact, Britain came dangerously close to being at war with the USSR as well in 1939-40, when Stalin and Hitler were if not allies then at least co-operative plunderers.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
So the Soviet Union was really Conservative?
Gorbachev's opponents, like supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini, were often referred to as "conservatives."
That's in the technical sense that a conservative thinks the established arrangements are fine and sees no need to make drastic change. It's as much a temperamental thing as a political one - autocracies can be quite easy to deal with, if the autocrat is amiably disposed, and the prospect of his being overthrown by an unpredictable democratic uprising may not be to conservatives' taste. Sometimes they may be right - I think it's hard to argue that Libya is currently much better off than under Gaddhafi, though it may have more potential to become so.
If I was one of the 55% who voted NO - I'd be REALLY pissed off if HMG rolled over to the SNP or encouraged an eff-up of my local economy using FFA just to stick it to the Nationalists.
Very shortsighted, no matter how appealing it would be.
FFA is tempting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes EVEL much more straightforward, the SNP may even back it on a quid pro quo basis. Secondly, the infantilisation of Scottish politics, which is completely dominated by the competition of how many sweeties are in the jar, would stop if responsibility for purchasing those sweeties stopped with the Scottish Parliament. Thirdly, it will increase the strains in the SNP alliance between those well to the left of Nicola and those like Swinney who border on being sensible.
Why then, do I have reservations? It seems to me that it is another untying of the knots that bind us. I opposed devolution on that basis. I thought that those who argued for it and claimed it would reduce the pressure for independence (like Dewar) were painfully naïve.
Untying our fiscal links makes the next step to independence much more straightforward. It may well demonstrate that the absurd land of milk and honey in that ridiculous White Paper (a document that went well beyond fantasy into deep dishonesty) was nothing more than a fantasy but it would also make the choices more concrete, more real and remove most of the uncertainty.
And those who believe it would stop the moaning are as deluded as the Nationalists. We see, even on this thread, that we would still face absurd arguments about how Scotland should not pay its share of the debt interest or for its own defence. I think FFA is playing with fire every bit as much as devolution was. Unionists should be very careful.
I think I speak for more than just myself in asking that you start posting in English. The incomprehensible dribble you post seems to be trying to say something but it is genuinely impossible to parse.
Britain had already sided against Hitler before Stalin became involved. In fact, Britain came dangerously close to being at war with the USSR as well in 1939-40, when Stalin and Hitler were if not allies then at least co-operative plunderers.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
I desperately wish this was true. But in my experience the theoretical underpinnings of political parties are just windowdressing (albeit very necessary ones). Parties act to promote the interests of various groups of people, and the beliefs they propound at any given moment are bolted on to justify to themselves what they've already decided to do. In case you think I'm having a go at the Conservative Party, this is true of all of them.
1 - join us and fight Germany 2 - allow us to take your ships and we will repatriate you 3 - sail to Martinique and see out the war there 4 - we sink your ships
OT I see Sons of Anarchy S7 is on Spike TV from next week. I discovered last week that the male lead Jax was in Byker Grove. That's quite a credits list since it also spawned Ant & Dec.
This debate (?) has developed into a tormented game of Chinese whispers. What the hell has WW2 got to do with any of this? It does however seem that DH has touched a universal nerve. I think his poker analogy is spot on. The SNP never expected to be where it is now and it's just discovered that its satnav is on the blink (Oil price is what? Who mentioned Barnett?).
Continuing the poker analogy, if the Tories raise the SNP bluff, I think it's probable that the SNP will go all in (what choice would it have?) which will either bust the SNP or severely reduce the UK's stack.
Danish update: Latest polls show centre-right 5.0, 4.7 and 0% ahead, though the 0% one is nearly as large as the other two combined and show the centre-left with a fractional seat lead. Four days to go.
'Was the British invasion of Iceland legal? Yes it was, at least in British law: as expounded in previous posts, I don't think international law exists '
That's a line pretty well all aggressors can rely on.
Danish update: Latest polls show centre-right 5.0, 4.7 and 0% ahead, though the 0% one is nearly as large as the other two combined and show the centre-left with a fractional seat lead. Four days to go.
I think I speak for more than just myself in asking that you start posting in English. The incomprehensible dribble you post seems to be trying to say something but it is genuinely impossible to parse.
Tell it to "Nanking, 1937". Then I will show you what a fule you are.
Or you can never quote me again. Would save most peoples' bandwidth if you understand Engurlish.....
I think I speak for more than just myself in asking that you start posting in English. The incomprehensible dribble you post seems to be trying to say something but it is genuinely impossible to parse.
Tell it to "Nanking, 1937". Then I will so you what a fule you are.
My enemy's enemy is my friend. For Dair, anything must be better than British rule.
Living in an island that actually had a Nazi invasion, I fear Dair is mistaken.....
Oh that takes the biscuit.
You sit there and lecture Scotland on how it should not leave the rUK while living in a tax haven which benefits massively from being outside the UK while retaining full Currency Union and Defence provision for which it pays... nothing.
Actually I believe the Japanese started it in 1937.
Don't be so Euro-centric.
Breaking the habit of a lifetime, I'm going to agree with Dair. WWII started either in 1937, when Japan invaded China, or in 1941, when they bombed Hawaii (and so brought about the political and military events that created a single global war). Either way, it began in the East.
Lots of posts on the alternate end of WWI there. It's interesting to consider how history could've changed at various key moments (Persian invasion of Greece, Second Punic War, if Aurelian had lived, if Chosroes had remained an ally of Byzantium and the two empires had co-operated against the initial surge of Islam, if the Fourth Crusade had never happened or Manuel Comnenus had looked east rather than west etc etc).
Good piece by David, I think letting Scotland experiment with having control over the economic levers to try and grow the economy is the way to go. You never know Scotland may actually make it work.
I'm despairing about the Unionists parties "strategy" at the moment, my twitter feed has been melting down over the last few days with carpet bombing by Kezia, Blair McD, John McT, Ruth, LibDems and virtually all of the MSM, about Scotland being an economic basket case. They backup their case with endless graphs from IFS and a site called Chokkablog, then retweet each others stories between themselves. I think Scotland started off as Greece on Wednesday, by Thursday we were Argentina and by last night we were Zimbabwe.
Suffice to say whatever the facts of the matter, SLAB have been spinning this line for the last 6 months and it has taken them from polling 27% down to 19%, should they continue with "Plan A" they'll be at 15% before long.
Also worth noting that the IFS is a right wing think tank not the Delphi Oracle. Is this the same IFS which was roundly criticized by all parties after their manifesto analysis? We live in an uncertain world, for example should ISIS continue to expand it’s influence across the Middle East and disrupt oil supplies to the West, what then for the price of oil?
I think Unionist parties need a "Plan B" and quick, they need to start being much more positive about Scotland and it's prospects, where is the Better Together vision for Scotland?
In terms of SLAB leadership, I don't think Kezia is the answer, particularly if she is seen as Murphy's appointee. SLAB need to stop demonising the SNP and the 60% of Scots now supporting them, instead of blaming others SLAB needs to take responsibility for its own failure. As for kicking out SLAB members who voted for the SNP, how is that going to help attract folks back to SLAB?
I am indeed from the dark side, sadly the winning side from Indyref have turned themselves into losers with no positive vision for Scotland's future. I think the hybrid approach proposed by David is interesting. Bizarrely if the SNP did succeed in growing our economy, that may actually reduce the pressure for independence.
Danish update: Latest polls show centre-right 5.0, 4.7 and 0% ahead, though the 0% one is nearly as large as the other two combined and show the centre-left with a fractional seat lead. Four days to go.
Mrs Kinnock (Helle Thorning) is the PM and leads the centre-left side. She's much more popular than her opponent, who has had expenses trouble and is seen as not very prime ministerial - by Danish standards (which do not go in for OTT personalities) she has a pleasant dose of star quality, much like the Borgen heroine. She is also seen as better on the economy. Having a husband who's a British MP is seen as mildly interesting but essentially unremarkable - Danes don't get much into the details of politicians' relationships.
However, unease over immigration has helped the centre-right and the tiny centre-left lead at the last election has been replaced by a small centre-right lead for most of the time since (Danish politics is very, very stable), and a few weeks ago they looked like a shoo-in. It's another test of the "you can't win with a poor leader not trusted on the economy" theory.
Someone (Big G?) was saying that the centre-right would be more helpful to Cameron and would favour a new refrendum. Europe hasdn't featured much in the campaign and I doubt if it will make much difference to Mr Cameron's efforts, either way: the Danes will try to be helpful to Britain anyway (they like us!), without being frenzied about it.
Danish update: Latest polls show centre-right 5.0, 4.7 and 0% ahead, though the 0% one is nearly as large as the other two combined and show the centre-left with a fractional seat lead. Four days to go.
Danish update: Latest polls show centre-right 5.0, 4.7 and 0% ahead, though the 0% one is nearly as large as the other two combined and show the centre-left with a fractional seat lead. Four days to go.
Mrs Kinnock (Helle Thorning) is the PM and leads the centre-left side. She's much more popular than her opponent, who has had expenses trouble and is seen as not very prime ministerial - by Danish standards (which do not go in for OTT personalities) she has a pleasant dose of star quality, much like the Borgen heroine. She is also seen as better on the economy. Having a husband who's a British MP is seen as mildly interesting but essentially unremarkable - Danes don't get much into the details of politicians' relationships.
However, unease over immigration has helped the centre-right and the tiny centre-left lead at the last election has been replaced by a small centre-right lead for most of the time since (Danish politics is very, very stable), and a few weeks ago they looked like a shoo-in. It's another test of the "you can't win with a poor leader not trusted on the economy" theory.
Someone (Big G?) was saying that the centre-right would be more helpful to Cameron and would favour a new refrendum. Europe hasdn't featured much in the campaign and I doubt if it will make much difference to Mr Cameron's efforts, either way: the Danes will try to be helpful to Britain anyway (they like us!), without being frenzied about it.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
You make it sound so black and white, and to an extent that is understandable given the way history of the period is presented.
But it's not black and white.
We sided with Stalin (who murdered about 10 to 15million noncombatants) against Hitler (who murdered about 14million noncombatants).
Overall, it probably was the right decision but that does not then justify a number of the less glorious acts (such as Iceland and less clear cut Mers-el-Kébir) which occurred during the war.
Britain had already sided against Hitler before Stalin became involved. In fact, Britain came dangerously close to being at war with the USSR as well in 1939-40, when Stalin and Hitler were if not allies then at least co-operative plunderers.
The USSR knew that Hitler had territorial designs on them so any diplomacy on their part has to be seen in that context.
Putting Stalin and Hitler in the same camp is offensive to Russia and obscures the historic debt they owe the the UK and France for declaring war on the Nazis first and ensuring a two-front war.
Sometimes you need to propose quite radical change in order to take the steam out of revolutionary change. This is one such time. Others, of a last-ditch attitude, will no doubt argue the opposite, as they always have. I happen to think that in this case, they're wrong.
Sounds suspiciously close to this will kill Nationalism stone dead.
Maybe. I don't think there's much to lose now though from a unionist perspective.
The reason Robertson's original assertion was wrong actually had very little to do with nationalism directly. It was that the alternative Holyrood government to Labour became the SNP. This was not particularly because of nationalism (even excluding Labour, until recently nationalists comprised a minority of the rest), but because they made the breakthrough on domestic matters that the Lib Dems and Tories couldn't.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but then I think what has been and is happening in Scotland has much less to do with Nationalism than many people think.
Also contained in your words is the reason why Devolution has been failing from the beginning. Labour didn't really want anything to happen with it apart from them being in charge, and if devo isn't a process it's nothing. The rise of the SNP has actually paralysed the devolution process because every Unionist party has either prevaricated on or obstructed further powers out of fear it will give the Nats more clout.
Up until about 2005/6, Robertson's prediction was looking pretty good. The SNP were declining in election after election. As a Scottish Lib Dem, I thought we had a good chance of overtaking them in the Scottish Parliament at some point.
I'd agree with Theuniondivvie that a lot of the subsequent SNP surge has little to do with nationalism. The upsurge in the SNP vote in 2007 was as much a protest vote against the Blair government as it was a positive vote for the SNP. The 2011 gains were driven by the Lib Dem collapse.
2015 was caused by the SNP being in a strong position and Ed Miliband's Labour not looking like a credible alternative to the Tories. Scotland is not the foreign country that it might look like to a southerner. If Labour gets its act together in Westminster then its poll rating will improve in Scotland. Similarly for the Lib Dems.
Bear in mind that the SNP polled less than 20% in 2010 and 29% in the 2014 Euro elections. Their vote is soft enough to collapse in a general election once enough Scots decide it's time to get the Tories out.
My problem with the Scottish Parliament is that it's mainly been used as a tool for bribing middle class swing voters. The best chance of getting the SNP out of Holyrood is for the opposition parties to be a wee bit more radical.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
You make it sound so black and white, and to an extent that is understandable given the way history of the period is presented.
But it's not black and white.
We sided with Stalin (who murdered about 10 to 15million noncombatants) against Hitler (who murdered about 14million noncombatants).
Overall, it probably was the right decision but that does not then justify a number of the less glorious acts (such as Iceland and less clear cut Mers-el-Kébir) which occurred during the war.
Britain had already sided against Hitler before Stalin became involved. In fact, Britain came dangerously close to being at war with the USSR as well in 1939-40, when Stalin and Hitler were if not allies then at least co-operative plunderers.
I do understand this. But it is also fairly clear that Hitler's goal was not war with France and the UK, it was with Russia from the start and always with Russia where his ultimate goals lay.
Obviously it is more complex than that and there is a moral question over allowing Poland and Lithuania to be a battleground between those powers but in Lithuania's case (especially that part of Ukraine which was then in Lithuania) the scale of the genocide caused in the latter part of the war by our own allies was utterly appalling and our alliance with Russia did nothing to ameliorate that in any way.
With hindsight it is arguable that Germany and Russia should have been allowed to fight it out in a war of mutual annihilation but there is no guarantee that would have been the outcome.
Maybe. I don't think there's much to lose now though from a unionist perspective.
The reason Robertson's original assertion was wrong actually had very little to do with nationalism directly. It was that the alternative Holyrood government to Labour became the SNP. This was not particularly because of nationalism (even excluding Labour, until recently nationalists comprised a minority of the rest), but because they made the breakthrough on domestic matters that the Lib Dems and Tories couldn't.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but then I think what has been and is happening in Scotland has much less to do with Nationalism than many people think.
Also contained in your words is the reason why Devolution has been failing from the beginning. Labour didn't really want anything to happen with it apart from them being in charge, and if devo isn't a process it's nothing. The rise of the SNP has actually paralysed the devolution process because every Unionist party has either prevaricated on or obstructed further powers out of fear it will give the Nats more clout.
Up until about 2005/6, Robertson's prediction was looking pretty good. The SNP were declining in election after election. As a Scottish Lib Dem, I thought we had a good chance of overtaking them in the Scottish Parliament at some point.
I'd agree with Theuniondivvie that a lot of the subsequent SNP surge has little to do with nationalism. The upsurge in the SNP vote in 2007 was as much a protest vote against the Blair government as it was a positive vote for the SNP. The 2011 gains were driven by the Lib Dem collapse.
2015 was caused by the SNP being in a strong position and Ed Miliband's Labour not looking like a credible alternative to the Tories. Scotland is not the foreign country that it might look like to a southerner. If Labour gets its act together in Westminster then its poll rating will improve in Scotland. Similarly for the Lib Dems.
Bear in mind that the SNP polled less than 20% in 2010 and 29% in the 2014 Euro elections. Their vote is soft enough to collapse in a general election once enough Scots decide it's time to get the Tories out.
My problem with the Scottish Parliament is that it's mainly been used as a tool for bribing middle class swing voters. The best chance of getting the SNP out of Holyrood is for the opposition parties to be a wee bit more radical.
Mr. JS, I almost posted a piece about how Labour were like the French monarchy when it comes to leadership, whereas the Conservatives are more like the Macedonians in the 4th century BC.
If I was one of the 55% who voted NO - I'd be REALLY pissed off if HMG rolled over to the SNP or encouraged an eff-up of my local economy using FFA just to stick it to the Nationalists.
Very shortsighted, no matter how appealing it would be.
FFA is tempting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes EVEL much more straightforward, the SNP may even back it on a quid pro quo basis. Secondly, the infantilisation of Scottish politics, which is completely dominated by the competition of how many sweeties are in the jar, would stop if responsibility for purchasing those sweeties stopped with the Scottish Parliament. Thirdly, it will increase the strains in the SNP alliance between those well to the left of Nicola and those like Swinney who border on being sensible.
Why then, do I have reservations? It seems to me that it is another untying of the knots that bind us. I opposed devolution on that basis. I thought that those who argued for it and claimed it would reduce the pressure for independence (like Dewar) were painfully naïve.
Untying our fiscal links makes the next step to independence much more straightforward. It may well demonstrate that the absurd land of milk and honey in that ridiculous White Paper (a document that went well beyond fantasy into deep dishonesty) was nothing more than a fantasy but it would also make the choices more concrete, more real and remove most of the uncertainty.
And those who believe it would stop the moaning are as deluded as the Nationalists. We see, even on this thread, that we would still face absurd arguments about how Scotland should not pay its share of the debt interest or for its own defence. I think FFA is playing with fire every bit as much as devolution was. Unionists should be very careful.
Put's my position more succinctly than I managed myself!
Mr. L, that's one reason why the three party leaders being nodding dogs to Brown's Vow nonsense was so stupid.
If lots of powers are devolved, that irks many unionists. If lots of powers aren't devolved, it makes the 'Vow' and those who backed it look deceitful.
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?
You make it sound so black and white, and to an extent that is understandable given the way history of the period is presented.
But it's not black and white.
We sided with Stalin (who murdered about 10 to 15million noncombatants) against Hitler (who murdered about 14million noncombatants).
Overall, it probably was the right decision but that does not then justify a number of the less glorious acts (such as Iceland and less clear cut Mers-el-Kébir) which occurred during the war.
Britain had already sided against Hitler before Stalin became involved. In fact, Britain came dangerously close to being at war with the USSR as well in 1939-40, when Stalin and Hitler were if not allies then at least co-operative plunderers.
I do understand this. But it is also fairly clear that Hitler's goal was not war with France and the UK, it was with Russia from the start and always with Russia where his ultimate goals lay.
Obviously it is more complex than that and there is a moral question over allowing Poland and Lithuania to be a battleground between those powers but in Lithuania's case (especially that part of Ukraine which was then in Lithuania) the scale of the genocide caused in the latter part of the war by our own allies was utterly appalling and our alliance with Russia did nothing to ameliorate that in any way.
With hindsight it is arguable that Germany and Russia should have been allowed to fight it out in a war of mutual annihilation but there is no guarantee that would have been the outcome.
Surely the outcome of only having to fight on one front would have been the Axis powers winning, Japan overcoming China and a vast 3rd Reich empire - something quite unthinkable. The first world war was the one we should have dodged. By the time the 2nd came along I think it was too late.
Plato: "Given the STORY vote rose in 2015, it looks like unwind on that segment".
aschamberlain said:
" The 2011 gains were driven by the Lib Dem collapse."
You are both indulging (but go ahead, I am just being kind to you) in incredible self delusion.
Plato. What matters most to any sentient analyst is the percentage vote polled by the Tories, not the number of votes. I have pointed out more than once that the Tory vote % in Scotland at GE 2015 was the worst at a GE since 1865.
aschamberlain. Did you hold the number of seats in Scotland you expected to? How about defeating Alex Salmond? On Holyrood 2011, subsequent investigation proved that an apparently stable SLAB vote % disguised significant voters moving from Lib Dem to Labour substituting numerically for SLAB voters moving to SNP.
Sadly for the LibDems, every other party fed on your dying remains, although I don't mind admitting the SNP had, appropriately, the Lion's share.
Surely the outcome of only having to fight on one front would have been the Axis powers winning, Japan overcoming China and a vast 3rd Reich empire - something quite unthinkable. The first world war was the one we should have dodged. By the time the 2nd came along I think it was too late.
Yes. For all the traumas of postwar Europe and countless personal tragedies, it's on the whole worked out reasonably overall, and it's extremely hard to imagine a German-Japanese victory at which Britain was a phlegmatic observer being anything other than a catastrophe beyond belief, for us and everyone else.
There are lots of alternative histories written about what would have happened if the Axis had won, but I've not seen one on what would have happened if Britain and France had accepted Russia as an ally earlier when the guarantee to Czechoslovakia was a serious option. It's fairly well-accepted that the moment when Stalin decided to go for the Ribbentrop Pact was the collapse of the Czech guarantee. But if Hitler had been confronted by a solid tripartite front, he would probably have backed down until Germany had developed its forces further.
It's hard to see an Allied preemptive strike on Germany, though, and equally hard to see Hitler settling down to build motorways and play golf, so perhaps the final outcome would have been similar, though probably an easier war for the Allies to win.
Mr. JS, I almost posted a piece about how Labour were like the French monarchy when it comes to leadership, whereas the Conservatives are more like the Macedonians in the 4th century BC.
Only on PB would someone naturally assume that the audience is well-informed on the methods of Macedonian leadership in the 4th century.
"David Cameron has won the greatest victory yet in his battle for EU reform after Denmark’s four opposition parties formally announced that they will back Britain’s renegotiation project if they win next Thursday’s election.
The traditionally pro-European Liberal Party on Thursday announced that it had struck an agreement with the eurosceptic Danish People's Party to back Cameron in an about face that has caught Denmark’s political world by surprise."
"David Cameron has won the greatest victory yet in his battle for EU reform after Denmark’s four opposition parties formally announced that they will back Britain’s renegotiation project if they win next Thursday’s election.
The traditionally pro-European Liberal Party on Thursday announced that it had struck an agreement with the eurosceptic Danish People's Party to back Cameron in an about face that has caught Denmark’s political world by surprise."
Plato: "Given the STORY vote rose in 2015, it looks like unwind on that segment".
aschamberlain said:
" The 2011 gains were driven by the Lib Dem collapse."
You are both indulging (but go ahead, I am just being kind to you) in incredible self delusion.
Plato. What matters most to any sentient analyst is the percentage vote polled by the Tories, not the number of votes. I have pointed out more than once that the Tory vote % in Scotland at GE 2015 was the worst at a GE since 1865.
aschamberlain. Did you hold the number of seats in Scotland you expected to? How about defeating Alex Salmond? On Holyrood 2011, subsequent investigation proved that an apparently stable SLAB vote % disguised significant voters moving from Lib Dem to Labour substituting numerically for SLAB voters moving to SNP.
Sadly for the LibDems, every other party fed on your dying remains, although I don't mind admitting the SNP had, appropriately, the Lion's share.
This chart shows just how bad things have got for SLAB and SLID, can the Tories seek to capitalise in 2016? I'm sure David Cameron can manufacture a few policy climb downs following "pressure" from Ruth:
Plato: "Given the STORY vote rose in 2015, it looks like unwind on that segment".
aschamberlain said:
" The 2011 gains were driven by the Lib Dem collapse."
You are both indulging (but go ahead, I am just being kind to you) in incredible self delusion.
Plato. What matters most to any sentient analyst is the percentage vote polled by the Tories, not the number of votes. I have pointed out more than once that the Tory vote % in Scotland at GE 2015 was the worst at a GE since 1865.
aschamberlain. Did you hold the number of seats in Scotland you expected to? How about defeating Alex Salmond? On Holyrood 2011, subsequent investigation proved that an apparently stable SLAB vote % disguised significant voters moving from Lib Dem to Labour substituting numerically for SLAB voters moving to SNP.
Sadly for the LibDems, every other party fed on your dying remains, although I don't mind admitting the SNP had, appropriately, the Lion's share.
This chart shows just how bad things have got for SLAB and SLID, can the Tories seek to capitalise in 2016? I'm sure David Cameron can manufacture a few policy climb downs following "pressure" from Ruth:
150-200 member unicameral UK Parliament, dealing with defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy (maybe 5-10% of government spending). Explicit sovereignty vested in the UK Parliament, as now. 3-400 member unicameral English Parliament, based in York or Manchester or somewhere and dealing with everything else Scottish, Welsh and NI Parliaments as now, also dealing with everything else.
Disputes between them adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
We'd go from being one of the most centralised democractic countries to one of the least.
The idea of having a national parliament based in anywhere other than London is a cantankerous and obscurantist abomination.
How about Croydon?
Croydon is in London. Croydon ist London! London aber ist Croydon wie Croydon London ist! London Hey Ho!
Croydon was in Surrey when I lived in St Claire's Road in the mid 80s. I think the postcode was CR9 2NS. Or that could be the postcode of the Lloyds Bank I belonged to!
150-200 member unicameral UK Parliament, dealing with defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy (maybe 5-10% of government spending). Explicit sovereignty vested in the UK Parliament, as now. 3-400 member unicameral English Parliament, based in York or Manchester or somewhere and dealing with everything else Scottish, Welsh and NI Parliaments as now, also dealing with everything else.
Disputes between them adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
We'd go from being one of the most centralised democractic countries to one of the least.
The idea of having a national parliament based in anywhere other than London is a cantankerous and obscurantist abomination.
How about Croydon?
Croydon is in London. Croydon ist London! London aber ist Croydon wie Croydon London ist! London Hey Ho!
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change..
A very strange way to define Conservatism, if I may say so, Mr Herdson. I see it rather as the progressve concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few. Of course, this has to be disguised and perhaps that is where your "minimisation of risk" comes in.
So the Soviet Union was really Conservative?
I remember reading a book from the early 80's from a lefty who visited the USSR, among his many interviews was with a leading soviet professor of sociology in which he described Rock and Roll music as corrupting the soviet youth and only classical music and jazz was acceptable by the communist party. He later went on moaning why his cousin who was a farmer was given a house, a car and other goodies by the soviet government, while he and other scientists were not given any.
So the Soviet Union was in some parts as Conservative as any radical christian but replacing God with Lenin and the Bible with the Communist Manifesto.
OT Unpopular opinion here. I've never understood the Larry Olivier fandom. Just watched a docu about him in Talking Pictures and still find him affected and aloof.
Comments
Oh well....
No doubt Churchill will have sanctioned this with consort of the US, The Dominions, The Royal Norwegian Family (and other inter-related families). As soon as we took it we focused our resources on places we were more strategically useful (and so handed it over to the Septics). The act was an act of liberation.
Bits of Norway were also consumed (by RM Commandos). I have no doubts that routes were also explored through the Sahara (albeit outwith Libya and Egypt) during the war. These were not occupations.
This discussion may please the childish pranks of Lord Sunil's procreations: History is a set of facts however. Recording them accurately is difficult.... **
* The Septics had no problem invading Vichy-France (not least once the Commonwealth had painfully routed the DAK.
** Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands were neutral. The Yugoslav refusal to submit to National-Socialism - followong a revolution - caused such mayhem and murder that we are still facing future Balken Wars. All were invaded by Germany (though I cannot comment on the SNP response).
:STFU:
Lawyers always represent both sides - even for Harold Shipman.
The best thing to do is give them what they fear, no subsidies.
And how's that hope for Tory MPs to die coming along for you?
Without Iceland under the control of the UK the war would have been lost within the first two years. It also would have had serious implications for the Russian front after hitters invasion.
Iceland was key to many facets of the war very much like Malta. Yes the Icelanders preferred to be left alone but their geographical position and strategic importance prevented that and another Norway could not be allowed to occur. They did prefer a British occupation to a German one though.
Relocation costs will be at a minimum as the SNP must be right when they say that only eight jobs in the whole of Scotland depend on the thing.
Did the Icelanders resist British, and later American, occupation?
To be fair the Nazis started it, rather than the Germans. A lot of Germans didn't want the war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
I remember reading something about either Iceland or Faroe islanders doing a non-cooperation thing and also untying moored vessels and refusing to speak English. But once they saw how the war was going, they realised it wasn't *that* bad.
I took Dair's comment as tongue in cheek.
The wars of the Twentieth-Century all relate to one thing: The wealth of the Engurlish (and their Oirish cousins)! It only took mighty Rome a century (and two invasions) to succeed!
They even went oop-Norf to Caledonia - a desolate place full of ineffectual warring-tribes - beat the living-daylights-out-of-them and built a wall. Then they looked over their shoulders and decided to pi5h-0rf-sarf.
Then the Angles invaded Northumberia and created Edinbourough. Not long later the eScoti were politely asked to leave Ulster (as polite as a spear-point can be) and they duly ran.
Move forward a couple-of-hundred years and you will find that the Scandis had learnt enough about piracy as to - with evil-helpers - attack the wealth of Northumbria and Mercia. All was well until the West/Southern-Sexes beat the beejus out of TFMFs. Wessex then took on any Norse-Celt trotter for a few centuries.
Eventually things when bad: As any watcher of [a] 'Dynasty' would know! As a result there was a strong Norse/Dane in Normandy who got lucky on a battlefield: His prize the greatest wealth in the former Roman-Empire: England....
No, hang on guys, I never said that we needed Poland....
It is those who refuse to bent that wind up breaking.
I'm despairing about the Unionists parties "strategy" at the moment, my twitter feed has been melting down over the last few days with carpet bombing by Kezia, Blair McD, John McT, Ruth, LibDems and virtually all of the MSM, about Scotland being an economic basket case. They backup their case with endless graphs from IFS and a site called Chokkablog, then retweet each others stories between themselves. I think Scotland started off as Greece on Wednesday, by Thursday we were Argentina and by last night we were Zimbabwe.
Suffice to say whatever the facts of the matter, SLAB have been spinning this line for the last 6 months and it has taken them from polling 27% down to 19%, should they continue with "Plan A" they'll be at 15% before long.
Also worth noting that the IFS is a right wing think tank not the Delphi Oracle. Is this the same IFS which was roundly criticized by all parties after their manifesto analysis? We live in an uncertain world, for example should ISIS continue to expand it’s influence across the Middle East and disrupt oil supplies to the West, what then for the price of oil?
I think Unionist parties need a "Plan B" and quick, they need to start being much more positive about Scotland and it's prospects, where is the Better Together vision for Scotland?
In terms of SLAB leadership, I don't think Kezia is the answer, particularly if she is seen as Murphy's appointee. SLAB need to stop demonising the SNP and the 60% of Scots now supporting them, instead of blaming others SLAB needs to take responsibility for its own failure. As for kicking out SLAB members who voted for the SNP, how is that going to help attract folks back to SLAB?
Unless you have a complete idiot squandering the family fortune, upper class families remain very very rich.
But it's not black and white.
We sided with Stalin (who murdered about 10 to 15million noncombatants) against Hitler (who murdered about 14million noncombatants).
Overall, it probably was the right decision but that does not then justify a number of the less glorious acts (such as Iceland and less clear cut Mers-el-Kébir) which occurred during the war.
Who started WW2? The Germans (at least the European theatre). Not Hitler, not the Nazi Party, not the Waffen SS, the Germans. Populations hold a collective responsibility for their governments: it is never someone else's fault, it is always yours in this matter. If you don't think this is true, pick up a gun and start assassinating until they kill you back.
Was the various Allied invasions of Iceland a good thing? Yes, it was: it enabled the Icelandic people to go about their business unmolested and ungenocided by a German invasion force.
Was the British invasion of Iceland legal? Yes it was, at least in British law: as expounded in previous posts, I don't think international law exists (if you disagree with that latter point, please hold off the discussion for another day). I don't know if it was legal in Icelandic law, whether contemporaneous or retrospective.
Having clarified your discussion with Revealed Truth, you may go about your business in a more productive manner. Evening all, (walks away whistling...:-))
FFA is tempting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes EVEL much more straightforward, the SNP may even back it on a quid pro quo basis. Secondly, the infantilisation of Scottish politics, which is completely dominated by the competition of how many sweeties are in the jar, would stop if responsibility for purchasing those sweeties stopped with the Scottish Parliament. Thirdly, it will increase the strains in the SNP alliance between those well to the left of Nicola and those like Swinney who border on being sensible.
Why then, do I have reservations? It seems to me that it is another untying of the knots that bind us. I opposed devolution on that basis. I thought that those who argued for it and claimed it would reduce the pressure for independence (like Dewar) were painfully naïve.
Untying our fiscal links makes the next step to independence much more straightforward. It may well demonstrate that the absurd land of milk and honey in that ridiculous White Paper (a document that went well beyond fantasy into deep dishonesty) was nothing more than a fantasy but it would also make the choices more concrete, more real and remove most of the uncertainty.
And those who believe it would stop the moaning are as deluded as the Nationalists. We see, even on this thread, that we would still face absurd arguments about how Scotland should not pay its share of the debt interest or for its own defence. I think FFA is playing with fire every bit as much as devolution was. Unionists should be very careful.
A free, very short (few hundred words) story up here: http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/unnecessarily-epic-thaddeus-and-the-demon
Utterly unrelated to the topic at hand, but then, so is WWII.
Next episode of Zodiac Eclipse will be up on Monday too.
Don't be so Euro-centric.
Very shortsighted, no matter how appealing it would be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Lee
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=finnish+gloster+gladiator&tbm=isch&imgil=k-xaWDD8TiC2aM%3A%3By1sTwXJBmZEySM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsurfcity.kund.dalnet.se%252Fgladiator_finland.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=k-xaWDD8TiC2aM%3A%2Cy1sTwXJBmZEySM%2C_&usg=___FeiITFhQDYPCOO7K7YYR2EyDtM=&biw=1525&bih=777&dpr=0.9&ved=0CCsQyjdqFQoTCM67vIDjjMYCFesU2wodksEAtQ&ei=xy98VY68I-up7AaSg4OoCw#imgrc=k-xaWDD8TiC2aM%3A;y1sTwXJBmZEySM;http%3A%2F%2Fsurfcity.kund.dalnet.se%2Fimages%2Fgladiator_10.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fsurfcity.kund.dalnet.se%2Fgladiator_finland.htm;396;241
Oh, yes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
:shyte-happens:
"Dear France,
You have four options:
1 - join us and fight Germany
2 - allow us to take your ships and we will repatriate you
3 - sail to Martinique and see out the war there
4 - we sink your ships
Yours,
Britain"
....
"NON!"
....
idiots.
Continuing the poker analogy, if the Tories raise the SNP bluff, I think it's probable that the SNP will go all in (what choice would it have?) which will either bust the SNP or severely reduce the UK's stack.
That's a line pretty well all aggressors can rely on.
Or you can never quote me again. Would save most peoples' bandwidth if you understand Engurlish.....
:eejit-alert:
Equally off-topic, the latest part in my long-running re-writing of global history's now up:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=340616&page=6
Oh that takes the biscuit.
You sit there and lecture Scotland on how it should not leave the rUK while living in a tax haven which benefits massively from being outside the UK while retaining full Currency Union and Defence provision for which it pays... nothing.
The utter hypocrisy.
Lots of posts on the alternate end of WWI there. It's interesting to consider how history could've changed at various key moments (Persian invasion of Greece, Second Punic War, if Aurelian had lived, if Chosroes had remained an ally of Byzantium and the two empires had co-operated against the initial surge of Islam, if the Fourth Crusade had never happened or Manuel Comnenus had looked east rather than west etc etc).
However, unease over immigration has helped the centre-right and the tiny centre-left lead at the last election has been replaced by a small centre-right lead for most of the time since (Danish politics is very, very stable), and a few weeks ago they looked like a shoo-in. It's another test of the "you can't win with a poor leader not trusted on the economy" theory.
Someone (Big G?) was saying that the centre-right would be more helpful to Cameron and would favour a new refrendum. Europe hasdn't featured much in the campaign and I doubt if it will make much difference to Mr Cameron's efforts, either way: the Danes will try to be helpful to Britain anyway (they like us!), without being frenzied about it.
Putting Stalin and Hitler in the same camp is offensive to Russia and obscures the historic debt they owe the the UK and France for declaring war on the Nazis first and ensuring a two-front war.
I'd agree with Theuniondivvie that a lot of the subsequent SNP surge has little to do with nationalism. The upsurge in the SNP vote in 2007 was as much a protest vote against the Blair government as it was a positive vote for the SNP. The 2011 gains were driven by the Lib Dem collapse.
2015 was caused by the SNP being in a strong position and Ed Miliband's Labour not looking like a credible alternative to the Tories. Scotland is not the foreign country that it might look like to a southerner. If Labour gets its act together in Westminster then its poll rating will improve in Scotland. Similarly for the Lib Dems.
Bear in mind that the SNP polled less than 20% in 2010 and 29% in the 2014 Euro elections. Their vote is soft enough to collapse in a general election once enough Scots decide it's time to get the Tories out.
My problem with the Scottish Parliament is that it's mainly been used as a tool for bribing middle class swing voters. The best chance of getting the SNP out of Holyrood is for the opposition parties to be a wee bit more radical.
Obviously it is more complex than that and there is a moral question over allowing Poland and Lithuania to be a battleground between those powers but in Lithuania's case (especially that part of Ukraine which was then in Lithuania) the scale of the genocide caused in the latter part of the war by our own allies was utterly appalling and our alliance with Russia did nothing to ameliorate that in any way.
With hindsight it is arguable that Germany and Russia should have been allowed to fight it out in a war of mutual annihilation but there is no guarantee that would have been the outcome.
Given the STORY vote rose in 2015, it looks like unwind on that segment.
If lots of powers are devolved, that irks many unionists. If lots of powers aren't devolved, it makes the 'Vow' and those who backed it look deceitful.
@JournoStephen: Scottish Labour will work towards candidate selection primaries for the 2020 UK Parliament election. #Murphageddon
Plato: "Given the STORY vote rose in 2015, it looks like unwind on that segment".
aschamberlain said:
" The 2011 gains were driven by the Lib Dem collapse."
You are both indulging (but go ahead, I am just being kind to you) in incredible self delusion.
Plato. What matters most to any sentient analyst is the percentage vote polled by the Tories, not the number of votes. I have pointed out more than once that the Tory vote % in Scotland at GE 2015 was the worst at a GE since 1865.
aschamberlain. Did you hold the number of seats in Scotland you expected to? How about defeating Alex Salmond? On Holyrood 2011, subsequent investigation proved that an apparently stable SLAB vote % disguised significant voters moving from Lib Dem to Labour substituting numerically for SLAB voters moving to SNP.
Sadly for the LibDems, every other party fed on your dying remains, although I don't mind admitting the SNP had, appropriately, the Lion's share.
There are lots of alternative histories written about what would have happened if the Axis had won, but I've not seen one on what would have happened if Britain and France had accepted Russia as an ally earlier when the guarantee to Czechoslovakia was a serious option. It's fairly well-accepted that the moment when Stalin decided to go for the Ribbentrop Pact was the collapse of the Czech guarantee. But if Hitler had been confronted by a solid tripartite front, he would probably have backed down until Germany had developed its forces further.
It's hard to see an Allied preemptive strike on Germany, though, and equally hard to see Hitler settling down to build motorways and play golf, so perhaps the final outcome would have been similar, though probably an easier war for the Allies to win.
The traditionally pro-European Liberal Party on Thursday announced that it had struck an agreement with the eurosceptic Danish People's Party to back Cameron in an about face that has caught Denmark’s political world by surprise."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11669380/Denmarks-opposition-parties-strike-deal-to-back-Cameron-on-EU-reform.html
https://twitter.com/Marnerbanana/status/609039737257627650
He later went on moaning why his cousin who was a farmer was given a house, a car and other goodies by the soviet government, while he and other scientists were not given any.
So the Soviet Union was in some parts as Conservative as any radical christian but replacing God with Lenin and the Bible with the Communist Manifesto.
I guess I'm just unwashed.