You'd enjoy a trilogy i once read about an early 21st century naval fleet being sent back in time to WW2 - the future setting involved a global war against islamic extremism, and the standard approach taken was to not only kill the enemy but sew them up in pig skins afterwards, presumably just to mess with them.
It also had prince harry as a character as a hard bitten SAS officer. It was alright.
That's an oxymoron. By-elections may be many things. They are fun, good betting opportunities and fascinating for political junkies. But important? Not really, especially one in mid-term, which only political obsessives will remember a year later.
Not saying that this will happen this time, but is it not the case that the Eastbourne by election was a contributory factor to the end of Thatcher? A bad defeat for Corbyn might not necessarily spell the end for him, but it might be the confirmation that Labour moderates have been looking for to make them consider their options.
Re Apple Tax. Sure, I was being lazy and your knowledge of the detail is greater than mine, but the point I was clumsily making was that, in my view, harmonised tax rates are just the sort of thing that the EU will move onto. If you're big enough and ugly enough in EU terms (Germany, France for sure, and probably Italy, Spain, Poland) you might be able to kick up enough fuss to deflect it a bit (though I despaired we ourselves as the UK really had that much influence if I'm honest). If you're Portgual, or say the Czech Republic, let alone Ireland, Latvia, Cyprus (or Scotland) you are in all likelihood going to get steamrollered. Liverpool can shout all it likes about tax rates but with half a dozen MP's (1% or so) it's totally powerless on its own.
There's certainly a desire by the French, and some others, to 'ban' tax competition. During the height of the Eurozone crisis, when Ireland was bust, they attempted to blackmail Ireland into changing its tax policy as a quid quo pro for rescue.
The Irish government refused, and said they would rather go bust and crash out the Eurozone than change their tax policy.
For this reason, I doubt the treaties will be changed any time soon. Low corporate tax rates are such a crucial part of the success of Ireland, Malta and others, that none of these countries will cut their own throats. Instead, what's happened is that the French, Italians, etc are all cutting their own corporate tax rates. As the gap naturally narrows, the pressure for change diminishes.
We have gone from 28% to 20% and eventually to 17% since 2010 without any real loss to corporation tax receipts.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
That's an appalling rationale.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
The gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/ have never committed the crimes that Saddam committed
(As I said, I still didn't support the death penalty for Saddam)
No, and nor could they have.
One of the biggest mistakes that America made in governing Iraq was in trying to remake it politically in their own image. Given its history and its culture, that was clearly impossible; even more so given the insurgency that then undermined the background security that freedom needs to thrive.
I'm opposed to the death penalty on practical grounds. I don't honestly see much difference between life-time incarceration and a death sentence; the former is just the latter, deferred.
In the case of Saddam, his crimes were so heinous and so proven that there could be no question of doubt. And yes, on practical grounds, political leaders who have dominated and who have commanded large numbers of supporters in the security services will influence the future of a country even if isolated in jail. It's the Mary Queen of Scots problem (or Ivan VI, or whatever other example you choose). Saddam both deserved to die and Iraq needed him to die. Of course, when those two coincide, there's no problem; we enter much murkier moral ground when they don't.
Did not the Lord Advocate submit that the Scottish Parliament should be consulted the other week in the Brexit court case. Consult is not veto sure, but I seems to recall Ms Sturgeon (and Ms Wood in Wales I think) claiming over the Summer there should be some sort of four nation lock on the process? Hogwash: we voted as a UK on an international matter.
It's as clear as a pikestaff that they are doing all they can in Edinburgh to assert Scotland's view in all of this (fair enough - no issue there), and trying to give the impression that Scotland has more power than it does here. Dangling the "threat" of independence if they don't get something to their satisfaction, is the source of that power such as it is. Again no issue per se, it's just I'm not having it as a brake on the rest of us. We voted out down here but a good clear margin without Scotland, we won't be stopped by Scotland, if that has consequences, then that's sad, but fair enough.
You missed my 'post the Brexit vote' bit. Yep, despite constant cries from Unionists about the equal partnership of the Union, the four nation lock thing was never going to be a goer. However at that point even the sharp minds of PB were predicting remain, and all along Sturgeon has been giving the impression of actually exploring all avenues rather than paying barely formed lip service to the idea.
There is no 'equal partnership', there never will be and nor should there be between any one entity and another ten times the size. Nor would there be were Scotland independent.
As I pointed out to you previously when you made the same point, perhaps you should encourage your Unionist pals from stating that there is. As previously, you'll no doubt ignore my point.
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
"Any court system that has a conviction rate that exceeds 99% is borken. Japan has, from memory, > 99.5%"
Not necessarily a broken *court system*. At one point, the CPS in the this country was only prepared to prosecute certain crimes if the evidence offered a certainty of conviction.
Whilst that would push up conviction rates, I'd argue that such a massively high conviction rate is still worrying. Essentially it is saying that (in the example you give above) that the CPS get it right 995 times out of a thousand, including both simple, straightforward cases and much more complex ones.
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
Do you think it will be similar to the UK pet Dachshund of Brussels perhaps.
Comments
NEW THREAD
One of the biggest mistakes that America made in governing Iraq was in trying to remake it politically in their own image. Given its history and its culture, that was clearly impossible; even more so given the insurgency that then undermined the background security that freedom needs to thrive.
I'm opposed to the death penalty on practical grounds. I don't honestly see much difference between life-time incarceration and a death sentence; the former is just the latter, deferred.
In the case of Saddam, his crimes were so heinous and so proven that there could be no question of doubt. And yes, on practical grounds, political leaders who have dominated and who have commanded large numbers of supporters in the security services will influence the future of a country even if isolated in jail. It's the Mary Queen of Scots problem (or Ivan VI, or whatever other example you choose). Saddam both deserved to die and Iraq needed him to die. Of course, when those two coincide, there's no problem; we enter much murkier moral ground when they don't.