Panelbase - Who were also the first opinion pollsters to detect an SNP lead at the last Scottish election.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 44% (+7) No 43% (-3)
Total base; Yes: 41 No: 42
As John Curtice observed:
"So in truth this is not a poll about which we should get too excited. There is good reason to believe that the particularly favourable result for the Yes side is a consequence of the way in which the poll was conducted. "
John Curtice who also got the 2011 election woefully wrong.
It's one poll and unlike the yougov one the inept tory spinners parroted without question, it's been taken with plenty of caveats. Yet I assure you that nobody is happier with the rampant complacency being shown from the No side than those of us supporting a Yes vote. Please keep it up.
I answered that particular point earlier, to Richard Tyndall (I think). I stand by what I said for the reasons given. It is also odd to suggest that other countries are allowing troops in Syria to use chemical weapons. That is going so far down Occam's Razor that you are in danger of falling off the tip.
And if they do use them (why would they?), then there are other non-bombing channels to dissuade them from such a course in most cases. Diplomacy for one. Sadly, we are well past the point where such diplomacy will work in Syria without major developments.
As for not being practical: it is a darned sight more practical than most of the other proposed solutions (not that we've had many plans from the non-intervention side). A common mistake people make is that any intervention in Syria will be in some way Iraq Mark II. If you look at what I wrote, any intervention will be orders of magnitude smaller and much more like Libya than Iraq or Afghanistan. It will easily be within the military capabilities of the US and UK or US and France (and possibly even just UK, France and other smaller countries). Last week's vote was not so much about adding our firepower as adding our international diplomatic clout to America's (yes, er still have some).
The key is to deter all parties in Syria from using chemical weapons, and to send a message to the rest of the world that regimes will get no advantage from using them. That can be done by limited strikes against set targets.
One word we have to be wary of is 'punishment'. Punishment should ideally be done through an international court process. What I detailed is a direct response to the heinous use of chemical weapons, and one that should deter and prevent future use of those weapons.
You may disagree with it, but hopefully it was a useful addition to the debate.
In the meantime, what is your plan? How would you mitigate the risks of non-intervention?
Has Lieberman considered if it would be in Israel's best interest to have an Islamist Syria on its northeastern Golan frontier?
It's also not in Israel's best interests to have an ongoing bloody civil war on its northeastern Golan frontier. A civil war that has already lasted two years, and which attracts weaponry and fighters into the area, and which also causes massive population upheavals.
It's also not in Israel's best interests to have chemical weapons used in a country on its northeastern Golan frontier.
Israel isn't faced with a very nice situation, is it? A real devil and the deep blue sea choice. But I bet they'd want peace with an Islamist government in place over the current conflict, which is destabilising and could easily spread.
OT. We are seeing something of an issue developing at the moment between the two branches responsible for air safety in the UK over the safety of Super Puma Helicopters for North Sea Operations.
After the crash 10 days ago, the Helicopter Safety Steering Group advised that all 4 models of Super Pumas should be grounded until the Air Accident Investigation Branch had ascertained the cause of the accident.
This Friday the Civil Aviation Authority and the HSSG announced that the accident had not been caused by an "airworthiness or technical problem" and therefore the Super Pumas were safe to fly again. A lot of oil workers are unhappy about this as no official reason has been given for the accident but generally it has been accepted that if the CAA says it is safe then presumably they know why the thing crashed and will tell us in due course.
However yesterday the Air Accident Investigation Branch which is actually carrying out the investigation into the crash said that they have not been able to say that the accident was not due to an airworthiness or technical problem, that they do not yet know the cause and that they do not know why the CAA and HSSG has announced the choppers are safe.
Needless to say there are now a lot of rather unhappy oil workers wondering if these things are fit for purpose.
Thanks for the update. I was wondering what the f' was going on with the conflicting statements. It seems that sadly people do have a reason to be both annoyed and concerned.
Comments
Yes: 41
No: 42
As John Curtice observed:
"So in truth this is not a poll about which we should get too excited. There is good reason to believe that the particularly favourable result for the Yes side is a consequence of the way in which the poll was conducted. "
It's one poll and unlike the yougov one the inept tory spinners parroted without question, it's been taken with plenty of caveats. Yet I assure you that nobody is happier with the rampant complacency being shown from the No side than those of us supporting a Yes vote. Please keep it up.
And if they do use them (why would they?), then there are other non-bombing channels to dissuade them from such a course in most cases. Diplomacy for one. Sadly, we are well past the point where such diplomacy will work in Syria without major developments.
As for not being practical: it is a darned sight more practical than most of the other proposed solutions (not that we've had many plans from the non-intervention side). A common mistake people make is that any intervention in Syria will be in some way Iraq Mark II. If you look at what I wrote, any intervention will be orders of magnitude smaller and much more like Libya than Iraq or Afghanistan. It will easily be within the military capabilities of the US and UK or US and France (and possibly even just UK, France and other smaller countries). Last week's vote was not so much about adding our firepower as adding our international diplomatic clout to America's (yes, er still have some).
The key is to deter all parties in Syria from using chemical weapons, and to send a message to the rest of the world that regimes will get no advantage from using them. That can be done by limited strikes against set targets.
One word we have to be wary of is 'punishment'. Punishment should ideally be done through an international court process. What I detailed is a direct response to the heinous use of chemical weapons, and one that should deter and prevent future use of those weapons.
You may disagree with it, but hopefully it was a useful addition to the debate.
In the meantime, what is your plan? How would you mitigate the risks of non-intervention?
It's also not in Israel's best interests to have chemical weapons used in a country on its northeastern Golan frontier.
Israel isn't faced with a very nice situation, is it? A real devil and the deep blue sea choice. But I bet they'd want peace with an Islamist government in place over the current conflict, which is destabilising and could easily spread.