politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How special is special? The US-UK relationship

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How special is special? The US-UK relationship

Be honest. How many G7 summits do you remember? How many are little more than talking shops with the same old photos of largely the same old characters? Last year’s summit, for instance, was mostly memorable for that photo of a defensive obstinate Trump surrounded by an exasperated Merkel and others. And this year? We have the sight of Trump showing off his latest pet, our very own Prime Minister, laughing a little too keenly  at the President’s bon mots (or possibly at the fact that Trump was able to utter a coherent mot at all). Trump is backing our PM. Hurrah! The special relationship is alive and well.

Read the full story here

swing_voter

First like Boris to the rock.....

swing_voter

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

TGOHF

Another anti Britain thread by a remainer. Yawn.

rcs1000

TGOHF said:

Another anti Britain thread by a remainer. Yawn.

All Ms Cyclefree is pointing out is that nations don't have friends, they have interests.

HYUFD

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is.

Nonetheless, especially when Republican presidents are in power the UK tends to have a closer relationship with the USA than any other major European power and we remain important to the US as it's most reliable and strongest ally in terms of military power, particularly in terms of NATO and anti terrorism operations. As the USA is the largest single export destination for the UK it is in the economic interests of the UK to have a good relationship with the USA too

TGOHF

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

Another anti Britain thread by a remainer. Yawn.

All Ms Cyclefree is pointing out is that nations don't have friends, they have interests.

“But isn’t it about time that we stopped deluding ourselves about our importance?”

Aren’t we awful - let’s hate ourselves into a United States of Europe... Boring.

AndyJS

It'll be a slightly surreal moment if both main parties vote in favour of an election when their combined average share in the polls at the moment is about 50% compared to 84% at the last GE.

HYUFD

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Once you have both 1 and 2 they cannot be removed unless voluntarily and they give us a means of standing up to the likes of Russia and China ourselves without always having to rely on the US to do it for us

another_richard

The US invaded a British territory – Grenada – in 1983 with barely so much as a “please” beforehand.

Grenada wasn't a British territory it was an independent country although it did have the Queen as head of state.

rcs1000

TGOHF said:

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

Another anti Britain thread by a remainer. Yawn.

All Ms Cyclefree is pointing out is that nations don't have friends, they have interests.

“But isn’t it about time that we stopped deluding ourselves about our importance?”

Aren’t we awful - let’s hate ourselves into a United States of Europe... Boring.

I don't think the article says that at all.

I think the article merely points out the US will do what the US thinks is best for the US. And that we - or the South Koreans or Mexicans or Canadians - are deluded if we think they will put our interests first.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Once you have both 1 and 2 they cannot be removed unless voluntarily and they give us a means of standing up to the likes of Russia and China ourselves without always having to rely on the US to do it for us

How does our seat on the Security Council allow us to stand up to Russia or China, given those permanent members can veto anything we propose?

another_richard

The special relationship is based on British lives and money being used to support US interests in return for British politicians being able to posture more on the world stage.

That desire to pretend they are more important than they are is also a feature in aspects of the UK's policy towards the EU (both pro and anti), Overseas Aid and even banking (see Brown's 'saved the world').

HYUFD

No gratitude in the article either for the US loans and supplies which helped keep us going in WW2 and the servicemen who died alongside ours liberating Europe from the Nazis and Fascism not for the vast US military presence in western Europe which kept the threat of the Soviet Union at bay or indeed still helps deter Putin

rcs1000

another_richard said:

The special relationship is based on British lives and money being used to support US interests in return for British politicians being able to posture more on the world stage.

That desire to pretend they are more important than they are is also a feature in aspects of the UK's policy towards the EU (both pro and anti), Overseas Aid and even banking (see Brown's 'saved the world').

Sadly, I think that's absolutely true.

another_richard

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

Another anti Britain thread by a remainer. Yawn.

All Ms Cyclefree is pointing out is that nations don't have friends, they have interests.

Nations have interests and their politicians have interests.

They are not necessarily the same.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1165992122341908481?s=20

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Once you have both 1 and 2 they cannot be removed unless voluntarily and they give us a means of standing up to the likes of Russia and China ourselves without always having to rely on the US to do it for us

How does our seat on the Security Council allow us to stand up to Russia or China, given those permanent members can veto anything we propose?

As we can veto anything they propose too

TheJezziah

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Once you have both 1 and 2 they cannot be removed unless voluntarily and they give us a means of standing up to the likes of Russia and China ourselves without always having to rely on the US to do it for us

How does our seat on the Security Council allow us to stand up to Russia or China, given those permanent members can veto anything we propose?

We can veto anything they propose, which has some value although I imagine most things we would want to veto would be vetoed by somebody else as well.

another_richard

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

The special relationship is based on British lives and money being used to support US interests in return for British politicians being able to posture more on the world stage.

That desire to pretend they are more important than they are is also a feature in aspects of the UK's policy towards the EU (both pro and anti), Overseas Aid and even banking (see Brown's 'saved the world').

Sadly, I think that's absolutely true.

And its all so self-defeating.

Bigging yourself up while flashing the cash and telling everyone else how important you are and how you are 'saving' them rarely wins you any friends.

RobD

An interesting piece, thanks.

I’m surprised the UK and France retain their seats on the security council. Suspect it won’t be there for long, and France’s will eventually be forfeit to the EU, if the council still exists.

StuartDickson

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Trident is not a shiny train set. It is a filthy, broken train set your dad bought one Christmas in the 60s, at extortionate prices, and has lain broken, busted, unloved and dust covered in the Caledonian attic ever since. Not only does nobody want to play with it; nobody can play with it. The (mind) set is faulty.

Meanwhile, the horrific and ongoing mounting debt incurred in storing this shit train set means that all subsequent Christmases have been cancelled. No shiny new soldiers, planes and boats that might actually be useful for the Downing Street bairns to play with.

Taxpayers were, and are, royally shafted by the Polaris and Trident idiocies, and the subsequent six decade coverup has been one of the most disgraceful aspects of the despicable media industry in England.

StuartDickson

RobD said:

An interesting piece, thanks.

I’m surprised the UK and France retain their seats on the security council. Suspect it won’t be there for long, and France’s will eventually be forfeit to the EU, if the council still exists.

Irish unity and Scottish sovereignty will be the end of little england’s stool. Time for England to finally grow up and realise that she is just a normal nation like all the other ones.

viewcode

swing_voter said:

...The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto)...depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support.....

The UK Permanent seat was not granted to us by anybody and is not within anybody's power to remove without our consent.

viewcode

StuartDickson said:

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Trident is not a shiny train set. It is a filthy, broken train set your dad bought one Christmas in the 60s, at extortionate prices, and has lain broken, busted, unloved and dust covered in the Caledonian attic ever since. Not only does nobody want to play with it; nobody can play with it. The (mind) set is faulty.

Meanwhile, the horrific and ongoing mounting debt incurred in storing this shit train set means that all subsequent Christmases have been cancelled. No shiny new soldiers, planes and boats that might actually be useful for the Downing Street bairns to play with.

Taxpayers were, and are, royally shafted by the Polaris and Trident idiocies, and the subsequent six decade coverup has been one of the most disgraceful aspects of the despicable media industry in England.

Sunk costs. I like Trident. Let's keep it.

rcs1000

RobD said:

An interesting piece, thanks.

I’m surprised the UK and France retain their seats on the security council. Suspect it won’t be there for long, and France’s will eventually be forfeit to the EU, if the council still exists.

I think that's right: Brexit, in fact, safeguards our Security Council seat (for now).

Longer term, there's no doubt that India will be pushing at the door, and then maybe Mercosur gets a seat...

StuartDickson

AndyJS said:

It'll be a slightly surreal moment if both main parties vote in favour of an election when their combined average share in the polls at the moment is about 50% compared to 84% at the last GE.

Spot on. Turkey’s really do vote for Christmas.

Antifrank wrote a very good article about this during the summer: once the duopoly’s vote crashes below 60%, the cosy system breaks down, and UNS models become virtually useless. At 50% or less, FPTP starts to murder the ConLab beast. An electoral bloodbath will ensue if the duopoly cannot creep back up to near 60%. Will the BBC help them or hinder them? I’m really not sure. All the signs are that the BBC has fallen out of love with the duopoly, They loved Blair and Cameron: they were BBC kind of guys. But BoZo is more of a YouTube chancer, and Corbyn is a Cold War, pre-colour TV relic.

viewcode

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

StuartDickson

viewcode said:

StuartDickson said:

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Trident is not a shiny train set. It is a filthy, broken train set your dad bought one Christmas in the 60s, at extortionate prices, and has lain broken, busted, unloved and dust covered in the Caledonian attic ever since. Not only does nobody want to play with it; nobody can play with it. The (mind) set is faulty.

Meanwhile, the horrific and ongoing mounting debt incurred in storing this shit train set means that all subsequent Christmases have been cancelled. No shiny new soldiers, planes and boats that might actually be useful for the Downing Street bairns to play with.

Taxpayers were, and are, royally shafted by the Polaris and Trident idiocies, and the subsequent six decade coverup has been one of the most disgraceful aspects of the despicable media industry in England.

Sunk costs. I like Trident. Let's keep it.

For all we know, Trident might quite literally be sunk. Who’s going to tell you?

The whole point of Trident is the ugly threat of mass murder of civilians on an unprecedented scale. The bully wielding the weapon is hardly going to tell the civilians facing the impending death-blow that the WMD is broken.

rcs1000

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

RobD

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

An interesting piece, thanks.

I’m surprised the UK and France retain their seats on the security council. Suspect it won’t be there for long, and France’s will eventually be forfeit to the EU, if the council still exists.

I think that's right: Brexit, in fact, safeguards our Security Council seat (for now).

Longer term, there's no doubt that India will be pushing at the door, and then maybe Mercosur gets a seat...

How about a seat for the Commonwealth?

RobD

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

rcs1000

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Well, it's a "diversity" visa, in theory.

And giving metric* shit tonnes of visas to the Irish doesn't suggest they're that keen on diversity.

* A metric shit tonne is very different from an imperial shit ton.

StuartDickson

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

Is the UK allocated *any* green cards in the lottery?

Last time I looked my UK citizenship was a direct No No, whereas my Swedish citizenship was welcomed with open arms. (This was admittedly many years ago.)

StuartDickson

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

StuartDickson

- “The US can smell desperation, much as stale spirits can be smelt on an alcoholic’s breath.”

It’s not just the US smelling the desperation ponging London. England’s reputation for a stiff upper lip, calmness and propriety is now purely historical. Friends (the few) are horrified. The others (the many) are amused.

And one of England’s biggest weaknesses is her complete, total and entire inability to differentiate between her friends and the great mass of others. Hint: the US are not your best pals.

StuartDickson

Next Scottish FIrst Minister
- to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, either as FM, or Head of Government in independent state

Ruth Davidson 5/1
Richard Leonard 6/1
Derek Mackay 10/1
Keith Brown 12/1
Kate Forbes 12/1
Humza Yousaf 12/1
Mhairi Black 16/1
Angus Robertson 16/1
Shona Robison 16/1
John Swinney 16/1
Stewart Hosie 20/1
Michael Matheson 20/1
Shirley-Anne Somerville 20/1
many other names listed, both SNP and others, at longer prices

(Coral; Ladbrokes)

Some of the names on here are just daft at such short prices, not least prime turkey Ruthie.

This is going to be between Mackay and A.N.Other. Who Mr or Mrs Other might be is a bit of a mystery. Leonard is not even going to be SLab leader at the next Scottish GE, and I’d be surprised if Ruthie is still around either. The most tempting Unionist prices are:

Anas Sarwar (SLab) at 100/1
Neil Findlay (SLab) at 100/1
Willie Rennie (SLD) at 100/1

All of those have got to be worth a speculative price of a pint, surely?

I’d stick a tenner on Mackay if I thought Sturgeon was on the brink of retirement. However, she isn’t.

RobD

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

CarlottaVance

Lovely story over the Grenada invasion.

Buckingham Palace phones Downing St “The Queen will see Mrs Thatcher” “We’re very sorry, but Mrs Thatcher’s diary is full today” “You don’t understand. The Queen WILL see Mrs Thatcher”

Thatcher drops everything and goes haring over to the palace.

Shown into the presence, the Queen does not sit down, so neither can Thatcher. The Queen is used to standing for long stretches.

The Queen would like to understand how a country of which she is head of state has been invaded by Thatcher’s best mate and the Queen finds out about it from Radio 4.

A severely chastened and absolutely mortified Thatcher returns to Downing St and has Reagan- who is in California woken up. “Yes Margaret” “But Margaret” is about all he’s able to say. After she hangs up on him he shakes his head and says “What a woman!”.

CarlottaVance

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

The U.K. has always been excluded - along with quite a few other countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

The U.K. has always been excluded - along with quite a few other countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

What I read suggested otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Diversity_Immigrant_Visas

In any case, I had asked if it was specifically excluded, or excluded because there are too many UK citizens current in the US. I believe it is the latter, not the former.

rcs1000

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

That's not true, the UK has never been eligible.

StuartDickson

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

Do your own research, but I can assure you that UK citizenship is an automatic rejection.

- “who are from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States”

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/diversity-visa

That is just nonsense. Neither Ireland nor Sweden have low rates of immigration to the US, nor loads of other citizens eligible for the scheme.

RobD

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

That's not true, the UK has never been eligible.

Well this 1991 press release from Stanford (cited by the wikipedia article linked earlier) must be inaccurate then - https://news.stanford.edu/pr/91/910925Arc1166.html

rcs1000

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

The U.K. has always been excluded - along with quite a few other countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

What I read suggested otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Diversity_Immigrant_Visas

In any case, I had asked if it was specifically excluded, or excluded because there are too many UK citizens current in the US. I believe it is the latter, not the former.

You're right that it is ostensibly because of too many Brits in the US.

But that answer also doesn't really make sense; because there are a tonne of Irish in the US, and somehow that doesn't stop them getting a lot of visas. So presumably there's some human intervension in there somewhere.

RobD

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

Do your own research, but I can assure you that UK citizenship is an automatic rejection.

- “who are from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States”

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/diversity-visa

That is just nonsense. Neither Ireland nor Sweden have low rates of immigration to the US, nor loads of other citizens eligible for the scheme.

By virtue of there being too many UK citizens in the US, not by a specific exclusion.

CarlottaVance

WWTww

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

That's not true, the UK has never been eligible.

Well this 1991 press release from Stanford must be inaccurate then - https://news.stanford.edu/pr/91/910925Arc1166.html

That refers to a temporary predecessor of the current permanent system that ran from 92-94.

rcs1000

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

That's not true, the UK has never been eligible.

Well this 1991 press release from Stanford must be inaccurate then - https://news.stanford.edu/pr/91/910925Arc1166.html

I think the answer is that they are technically different things. The Green Card Lottery is the DV visa programme. Whereas your press release is about the AA-1 programme.

I suspect that the DV visa is the global version of the previously European only AA programme.

tlg86

CarlottaVance said:

Lovely story over the Grenada invasion.

Buckingham Palace phones Downing St “The Queen will see Mrs Thatcher” “We’re very sorry, but Mrs Thatcher’s diary is full today” “You don’t understand. The Queen WILL see Mrs Thatcher”

Thatcher drops everything and goes haring over to the palace.

Shown into the presence, the Queen does not sit down, so neither can Thatcher. The Queen is used to standing for long stretches.

The Queen would like to understand how a country of which she is head of state has been invaded by Thatcher’s best mate and the Queen finds out about it from Radio 4.

A severely chastened and absolutely mortified Thatcher returns to Downing St and has Reagan- who is in California woken up. “Yes Margaret” “But Margaret” is about all he’s able to say. After she hangs up on him he shakes his head and says “What a woman!”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMzI24WC44

RobD

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

The U.K. has always been excluded - along with quite a few other countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

What I read suggested otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Diversity_Immigrant_Visas

In any case, I had asked if it was specifically excluded, or excluded because there are too many UK citizens current in the US. I believe it is the latter, not the former.

You're right that it is ostensibly because of too many Brits in the US.

But that answer also doesn't really make sense; because there are a tonne of Irish in the US, and somehow that doesn't stop them getting a lot of visas. So presumably there's some human intervension in there somewhere.

So the rule is if a single country accounts for more than 1/6 of the total number of accepted permanent resident applications for a given region over the past five years, it is classified as a high admission region. Easy for the UK to hit that, with about ten times as many accepted permanent residency applications as Ireland.

RobD

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

That's not true, the UK has never been eligible.

Well this 1991 press release from Stanford must be inaccurate then - https://news.stanford.edu/pr/91/910925Arc1166.html

I think the answer is that they are technically different things. The Green Card Lottery is the DV visa programme. Whereas your press release is about the AA-1 programme.

I suspect that the DV visa is the global version of the previously European only AA programme.

Ah, fair enough. I still stand by my point that the UK isn't specifically excluded. There are just too many of us applying for permanent residency

RobD

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

The U.K. has always been excluded - along with quite a few other countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

What I read suggested otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Diversity_Immigrant_Visas

In any case, I had asked if it was specifically excluded, or excluded because there are too many UK citizens current in the US. I believe it is the latter, not the former.

You're right that it is ostensibly because of too many Brits in the US.

But that answer also doesn't really make sense; because there are a tonne of Irish in the US, and somehow that doesn't stop them getting a lot of visas. So presumably there's some human intervension in there somewhere.

So the rule is if a single country accounts for more than 1/6 of the total number of accepted permanent resident applications for a given region over the past five years, it is classified as a high admission region. Easy for the UK to hit that, with about ten times as many accepted permanent residency applications as Ireland.

Oops, a region is classified as high admission if it accounts for 1/6 of the total. A country is classified as high admission if it accounts for 50,000 applications over a five year periods. The UK has had more than 10k successful applicants for permanent residency in each of the last five years and is thus excluded.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I get bored of journalists, and occasionally politicians, banging on about the 'special relationship'.

moonshine

Boris would be licking his lips if Corbyn/Swinson choose to fight the next election on Trident.

Thank you to Nick yesterday for the explanation on how to do programming in vanilla. I can’t keep up with the volume so didn’t see the reply until today. What an amateur I know.

By way of thanks, here’s a fascinating lecture from Mark Blyth (Brown Uni) explaining how the breakdown of each monetary and political consensus is seeded in the solution to the previous crisis.

Gold standard deflation fixed by post war labour market rigidity, which caused hyper inflation but was fixed by 1980s globalisation/neoliberalism, which caused inequality and a debt bubble, the response to which is “global Trumpism”. Certainly worth an hour of anyone here’s time.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0

SquareRoot

CarlottaVance said:

Lovely story over the Grenada invasion.

Buckingham Palace phones Downing St “The Queen will see Mrs Thatcher” “We’re very sorry, but Mrs Thatcher’s diary is full today” “You don’t understand. The Queen WILL see Mrs Thatcher”

Thatcher drops everything and goes haring over to the palace.

Shown into the presence, the Queen does not sit down, so neither can Thatcher. The Queen is used to standing for long stretches.

The Queen would like to understand how a country of which she is head of state has been invaded by Thatcher’s best mate and the Queen finds out about it from Radio 4.

A severely chastened and absolutely mortified Thatcher returns to Downing St and has Reagan- who is in California woken up. “Yes Margaret” “But Margaret” is about all he’s able to say. After she hangs up on him he shakes his head and says “What a woman!”.

I took my wife to Grenada for our honeymoon in Feb 2015. Its still a very sensitive subject amongst some out there. Its a subject best avoided as a topic of conversation.....

rcs1000

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

The U.K. has always been excluded - along with quite a few other countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

What I read suggested otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990#Diversity_Immigrant_Visas

In any case, I had asked if it was specifically excluded, or excluded because there are too many UK citizens current in the US. I believe it is the latter, not the former.

You're right that it is ostensibly because of too many Brits in the US.

But that answer also doesn't really make sense; because there are a tonne of Irish in the US, and somehow that doesn't stop them getting a lot of visas. So presumably there's some human intervension in there somewhere.

So the rule is if a single country accounts for more than 1/6 of the total number of accepted permanent resident applications for a given region over the past five years, it is classified as a high admission region. Easy for the UK to hit that, with about ten times as many accepted permanent residency applications as Ireland.

Gotcha. And the region is Europe.

Easy for the UK to exceed "quota".

rcs1000

moonshine said:

Boris would be licking his lips if Corbyn/Swinson choose to fight the next election on Trident.

Thank you to Nick yesterday for the explanation on how to do programming in vanilla. I can’t keep up with the volume so didn’t see the reply until today. What an amateur I know.

By way of thanks, here’s a fascinating lecture from Mark Blyth (Brown Uni) explaining how the breakdown of each monetary and political consensus is seeded in the solution to the previous crisis.

Gold standard deflation fixed by post war labour market rigidity, which caused hyper inflation but was fixed by 1980s globalisation/neoliberalism, which caused inequality and a debt bubble, the response to which is “global Trumpism”. Certainly worth an hour of anyone here’s time.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0

I think that's very plausible: the response to every crisis sows the seeds of the next crisis.

StuartDickson

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Specifically excluded.

Under what statute? I thought it was because there were too many UK citizens in the US. That's the normal criteria for being excluded. In fact, when the scheme was established the UK was eligible.

Do your own research, but I can assure you that UK citizenship is an automatic rejection.

- “who are from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States”

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/diversity-visa

That is just nonsense. Neither Ireland nor Sweden have low rates of immigration to the US, nor loads of other citizens eligible for the scheme.

By virtue of there being too many UK citizens in the US, not by a specific exclusion.

In your opinion. Meanwhile, back in the real world.

malcolmg

HYUFD said:

swing_voter said:

There are two key aspects to the `special' relationship. (1). The Trident nuclear weapons system and (2) The Permanent seat on the UN Security Council (with handy veto), both are closely related and depend (on varying degrees) on US goodwill and support. I am not convinced either are helpful or add to UK security, what they do offer is a shiny train set for British PMs to show off so complicate rather than offer clarity to the UK's current self reflection.

Once you have both 1 and 2 they cannot be removed unless voluntarily and they give us a means of standing up to the likes of Russia and China ourselves without always having to rely on the US to do it for us

Cuckoo

malcolmg

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I get bored of journalists, and occasionally politicians, banging on about the 'special relationship'.

Especially as it is far from special.

tlg86

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

SouthamObserver

The realities of the No Deal Brexit the Tories are set to inflict will leave us with a much clearer understanding of the UK’s place in the world and the value the US truly places on its relationship with us. Even the Brexit elite is not stupid enough to see the relationship as one of equals, but they have kidded themselves into believing the British (read English) view carries more weight, that we are the Greeks to their Romans. This is just one of their delusions that is about to come face to face with the cold, hard real world in a few months time.

malcolmg

StuartDickson said:

Next Scottish FIrst Minister
- to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, either as FM, or Head of Government in independent state

Ruth Davidson 5/1
Richard Leonard 6/1
Derek Mackay 10/1
Keith Brown 12/1
Kate Forbes 12/1
Humza Yousaf 12/1
Mhairi Black 16/1
Angus Robertson 16/1
Shona Robison 16/1
John Swinney 16/1
Stewart Hosie 20/1
Michael Matheson 20/1
Shirley-Anne Somerville 20/1
many other names listed, both SNP and others, at longer prices

(Coral; Ladbrokes)

Some of the names on here are just daft at such short prices, not least prime turkey Ruthie.

This is going to be between Mackay and A.N.Other. Who Mr or Mrs Other might be is a bit of a mystery. Leonard is not even going to be SLab leader at the next Scottish GE, and I’d be surprised if Ruthie is still around either. The most tempting Unionist prices are:

Anas Sarwar (SLab) at 100/1
Neil Findlay (SLab) at 100/1
Willie Rennie (SLD) at 100/1

All of those have got to be worth a speculative price of a pint, surely?

I’d stick a tenner on Mackay if I thought Sturgeon was on the brink of retirement. However, she isn’t.

I thought Findlay had announced he is leaving politics, and both Sarwar and Rennie are so bad it should be at least 10000-1. Surprised Mike Russel is not there but if Sturgeon does not have Indyref2 this parliament then I suspect either Mackay or Robertson would be my choices. Robertson or Russel would be best but Mackay is beginning to sound pretty good and may indeed be the future.

Cyclefree

another_richard said:

The US invaded a British territory – Grenada – in 1983 with barely so much as a “please” beforehand.

Grenada wasn't a British territory it was an independent country although it did have the Queen as head of state.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I remember that it caused a lot of fuss with Thatcher and HMQ who was, reportedly, very cross. In any case, it was an extraordinary way to treat an ally.

malcolmg

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Big_G_NorthWales

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

I hope not. We have enough fake politicians already

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

In actual fact of course the closest 'special relationship' the US has is with Australia, not the UK, Australia is the only nation to have fought alongside the USA in all its 20th and 21st century wars (including Vietnam which the UK avoided) and of course the USA was created by breaking away from British rule in the first place. Israel too is also probably a closer ally to the US than the UK is

The US has special relationships with Israel (it can buy better kit from the US than we can and better modify that which it gets (eg https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-israels-stealth-f-35i-truly-one-kind-22942 ), and Ireland (whose citizens can immigrate easier than our can and is allocated more green cards in the lottery)

I don't believe UK citizens can get Green Cards in the lottery - it is (and has always been) specifically excluded. Given how many cards are allocated to the Irish it always felt like a minor (but real) snub.

Is it specifically excluded, or simply excluded because of the number of brits already in the US? I'm doing my part to make it more difficult for others.

Well, it's a "diversity" visa, in theory.

And giving metric* shit tonnes of visas to the Irish doesn't suggest they're that keen on diversity.

* A metric shit tonne is very different from an imperial shit ton.

When POTUS gets to look at the tax implications he may start to think twice.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-no1-tax-haven-as-us-giants-cash-83bn-in-profits-38439876.html

Pulpstar

Biden back up to 33 in a Monmouth poll. Interestingly Sanders on 20 like the poll where he is leading

DavidL

StuartDickson said:

Next Scottish FIrst Minister
- to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, either as FM, or Head of Government in independent state

Ruth Davidson 5/1
Richard Leonard 6/1
Derek Mackay 10/1
Keith Brown 12/1
Kate Forbes 12/1
Humza Yousaf 12/1
Mhairi Black 16/1
Angus Robertson 16/1
Shona Robison 16/1
John Swinney 16/1
Stewart Hosie 20/1
Michael Matheson 20/1
Shirley-Anne Somerville 20/1
many other names listed, both SNP and others, at longer prices

(Coral; Ladbrokes)

Some of the names on here are just daft at such short prices, not least prime turkey Ruthie.

This is going to be between Mackay and A.N.Other. Who Mr or Mrs Other might be is a bit of a mystery. Leonard is not even going to be SLab leader at the next Scottish GE, and I’d be surprised if Ruthie is still around either. The most tempting Unionist prices are:

Anas Sarwar (SLab) at 100/1
Neil Findlay (SLab) at 100/1
Willie Rennie (SLD) at 100/1

All of those have got to be worth a speculative price of a pint, surely?

I’d stick a tenner on Mackay if I thought Sturgeon was on the brink of retirement. However, she isn’t.

So Derek Mackay is now heir apparent? No chance of Angus Robertson coming back into front line politics?

OldKingCole

I suspect that any 'specialness' in the relationship is down to language, and therefore the ability to relax together outside the conference room (or wherever) and an understanding of shared books, films and so on.
In my political lifetime Suez showed us starkly that there was no question on the US side of 'my friend, right or wrong'. In American eyes we were wrong and that was that. That was underlined by Wilson's refusal to do what the Aussies did, and send troops to Vietnam.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I thought at the time, and still think, that Eden was wrong and Wilson was right.)

Morris_Dancer

Mr. G/Mr. NorthWales, might it not be a Thatcherite approach, trying to change her voice just to sound better?

Of course, disentangling that from attempting to reduce a Scottish accent may well be impossible. But this isn't the first time a politician has tried to alter their voice. Didn't Osborne do it too?

OldKingCole

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Uni in London, then worked in Yorkshire, plus her husband is English. Does things to accents, even the strongest.

Cyclefree

TGOHF said:

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

Another anti Britain thread by a remainer. Yawn.

All Ms Cyclefree is pointing out is that nations don't have friends, they have interests.

“But isn’t it about time that we stopped deluding ourselves about our importance?”

Aren’t we awful - let’s hate ourselves into a United States of Europe... Boring.

We are more likely to succeed at whatever we do if we are realistic about ourselves.

We have not been realistic - and it has led us to delusions about the EU and our place in it and is now leading us to delusions about our place outside it.

Those who don’t want us to be a vassal of the EU seem quite unbothered about the prospect of us being a vassal of the US.

CatMan

Oh god, they are at it again:

https://twitter.com/jonathanliew/status/1166106927266484224?s=20

https://twitter.com/Aggerscricket/status/1166109166559211520?s=20

Morris_Dancer

King Cole, at primary school, (I have only vague memories of this), there was a girl whose accent was a mix of Liverpudlian, Geordie, and maybe Yorkshire. It was distinctive (but entirely comprehensible).

Pulpstar

Will everyone on the remain side of the argument still be in such favour of the House of Lords if Johnson enobles 300 Brexit inclined peers (It won't be that many but illustrates the point) or some such to help legislation get passed ?

I hope the pro HoL lot are borne out of a genuine love of it as an upper chamber with all its imperfections rather than anything to do with political current convenience.

The 3 way tie Dem poll had a sample size of 298 btw, my guess is Biden is actually on 25, Sanders, Warren 17ish, Harris 8, Buttigieg 5

DavidL

Our relationship with the US is important to this country but I agree that it is unwise to be sentimental or emotional about it. We still work very closely with the US on intelligence matters and with GCHQ have a major role to play. NATO is a lot less important now than it has been for most of the post war period and is of little interest to US Presidents going forward. Our trade with the US is huge and the UK remains the largest source of private sector investment in the US as they are here. The US international finance houses are a very important part of London's dominance.

Generally speaking we see the world in a similar way but that does not mean that we agree about everything. With this particular President things are more difficult whether it is recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the withdrawal from the Iran deal or his frankly bizarre tariffs policy but things were pretty cool under Obama too who was always more focused on the Pacific than the Atlantic and who did a lot to wind down NATO and the US commitment to it.

As I have said before going forward Europe is going to become an increasingly irrelevant backwater to world affairs and any US President's attention is going to be elsewhere. We really should not angst about this. Backwaters can be very pleasant places to live and are generally a lot more peaceful.

nichomar

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Uni in London, then worked in Yorkshire, plus her husband is English. Does things to accents, even the strongest.

I think she has been working on trying to avoid coming over as too strident and shouty which came over occasionally during the leadership campaign. I doubt if it has anything to do with changing her accent which to me is ‘scotish’ and not a problem.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

Our relationship with the US is important to this country but I agree that it is unwise to be sentimental or emotional about it. We still work very closely with the US on intelligence matters and with GCHQ have a major role to play. NATO is a lot less important now than it has been for most of the post war period and is of little interest to US Presidents going forward. Our trade with the US is huge and the UK remains the largest source of private sector investment in the US as they are here. The US international finance houses are a very important part of London's dominance.

Generally speaking we see the world in a similar way but that does not mean that we agree about everything. With this particular President things are more difficult whether it is recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the withdrawal from the Iran deal or his frankly bizarre tariffs policy but things were pretty cool under Obama too who was always more focused on the Pacific than the Atlantic and who did a lot to wind down NATO and the US commitment to it.

As I have said before going forward Europe is going to become an increasingly irrelevant backwater to world affairs and any US President's attention is going to be elsewhere. We really should not angst about this. Backwaters can be very pleasant places to live and are generally a lot more peaceful.

spot on.

MarqueeMark

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You'd try and hide your were from the same country as Gordon Brown, if you were trying to wield power in the land...

OldKingCole

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, at primary school, (I have only vague memories of this), there was a girl whose accent was a mix of Liverpudlian, Geordie, and maybe Yorkshire. It was distinctive (but entirely comprehensible).

I met my wife, who's early education was at a grammar school in a Lancashire mill town, when she was at Teacher Training College in the North East. She then had a distinct Lancashire accent. After a few years I brought her down to Essex, and after 50+ years she is still, just about, identified as 'not from round here' after a bit of conversation.

malcolmg

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G/Mr. NorthWales, might it not be a Thatcherite approach, trying to change her voice just to sound better?

Of course, disentangling that from attempting to reduce a Scottish accent may well be impossible. But this isn't the first time a politician has tried to alter their voice. Didn't Osborne do it too?

MD, She has never had much if any of a Scottish accent having spent all of her adult life in England and appears to have practiced hard to get rid of any trace so she fits in at Westminster. She is your usual fake politician.

MarqueeMark

Bad news, Remoaners. In an inversion of the accepted notion, you're all doomed to die before optimistic Leavers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49447685

CatMan

My mother has lived in England for over 50 years and still has a French accent!

OldKingCole

MarqueeMark said:

Bad news, Remoaners. In an inversion of the accepted notion, you're all doomed to die before optimistic Leavers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49447685

No, no, we're hopeful that sense will eventually prevail and we won't actually Leave. Or if we do, that we'll Return.

malcolmg

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Uni in London, then worked in Yorkshire, plus her husband is English. Does things to accents, even the strongest.

Only if you want it to, I spent many years in England and other countries around the world and have not changed my accent one bit.

MarqueeMark

On topic, let's get real. The people who want to question the special relationship have been supercharged because of who the US elected as their President. You feel really queasy that Trump is the person we have to be bessy mates with. When Obama was in office - not so much.

If it were Hilary, you'd be fawning over the first Madam President....

malcolmg

DavidL said:

StuartDickson said:

Next Scottish FIrst Minister
- to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, either as FM, or Head of Government in independent state

Ruth Davidson 5/1
Richard Leonard 6/1
Derek Mackay 10/1
Keith Brown 12/1
Kate Forbes 12/1
Humza Yousaf 12/1
Mhairi Black 16/1
Angus Robertson 16/1
Shona Robison 16/1
John Swinney 16/1
Stewart Hosie 20/1
Michael Matheson 20/1
Shirley-Anne Somerville 20/1
many other names listed, both SNP and others, at longer prices

(Coral; Ladbrokes)

Some of the names on here are just daft at such short prices, not least prime turkey Ruthie.

This is going to be between Mackay and A.N.Other. Who Mr or Mrs Other might be is a bit of a mystery. Leonard is not even going to be SLab leader at the next Scottish GE, and I’d be surprised if Ruthie is still around either. The most tempting Unionist prices are:

Anas Sarwar (SLab) at 100/1
Neil Findlay (SLab) at 100/1
Willie Rennie (SLD) at 100/1

All of those have got to be worth a speculative price of a pint, surely?

I’d stick a tenner on Mackay if I thought Sturgeon was on the brink of retirement. However, she isn’t.

So Derek Mackay is now heir apparent? No chance of Angus Robertson coming back into front line politics?

I would expect Robertson to be back and most likely to be next leader.

MarqueeMark

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Bad news, Remoaners. In an inversion of the accepted notion, you're all doomed to die before optimistic Leavers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49447685

No, no, we're hopeful that sense will eventually prevail and we won't actually Leave. Or if we do, that we'll Return.

False hope is no hope.

DavidL

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

StuartDickson said:

Next Scottish FIrst Minister
- to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, either as FM, or Head of Government in independent state

Ruth Davidson 5/1
Richard Leonard 6/1
Derek Mackay 10/1
Keith Brown 12/1
Kate Forbes 12/1
Humza Yousaf 12/1
Mhairi Black 16/1
Angus Robertson 16/1
Shona Robison 16/1
John Swinney 16/1
Stewart Hosie 20/1
Michael Matheson 20/1
Shirley-Anne Somerville 20/1
many other names listed, both SNP and others, at longer prices

(Coral; Ladbrokes)

Some of the names on here are just daft at such short prices, not least prime turkey Ruthie.

This is going to be between Mackay and A.N.Other. Who Mr or Mrs Other might be is a bit of a mystery. Leonard is not even going to be SLab leader at the next Scottish GE, and I’d be surprised if Ruthie is still around either. The most tempting Unionist prices are:

Anas Sarwar (SLab) at 100/1
Neil Findlay (SLab) at 100/1
Willie Rennie (SLD) at 100/1

All of those have got to be worth a speculative price of a pint, surely?

I’d stick a tenner on Mackay if I thought Sturgeon was on the brink of retirement. However, she isn’t.

So Derek Mackay is now heir apparent? No chance of Angus Robertson coming back into front line politics?

I would expect Robertson to be back and most likely to be next leader.

I would welcome that. He is intelligent and moderate. Mackay's policy on private schools shows a short sighted attitude and an unwelcome chippiness that we could do without.

OldKingCole

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Uni in London, then worked in Yorkshire, plus her husband is English. Does things to accents, even the strongest.

Only if you want it to, I spent many years in England and other countries around the world and have not changed my accent one bit.

Is your wife Scots? If so, you possibly refreshed your accent at home. My wife's accent is much more noticeable after we've spent a few days with her brother and his family.

FF43

There's a US special relationship for Brexit, which is the main point of interest right now. Brexit at its core is an ideological project to move the UK away from European social democracy and international multilateralism into an irredentist US-led Conservative sphere. There is a lot of US money going into this project, which is also backed by those close to Trump. The US FTA is important to this project for its symbolism and because the incompatibility of US rules with EU ones makes it harder for a future government to switch back to an EU sphere.

It isn't a vision that much shared outside Johnson's coterie. Voters like their social protections, lifestyles and jobs too much.

Morris_Dancer

King Cole, I've mentioned this before, but at university I was talking with a lady from the south (we were about a mile away from where I was born, as an aside) and she wasn't quite sure if I was from the south as well, or not.

Morris Dancer's Yorkshire accent is not pronounced. Or possibly even existent.

Mr. CatMan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fztkUuunI7g

Morris_Dancer

F1: a new team, Panthera, is seeking to join the grid in 2021.

According to recent history, an unkind man might expect them to leave in 2024. We'll see if F1 has learnt anything.

Alanbrooke

FF43 said:

There's a US special relationship for Brexit, which is the main point of interest right now. Brexit at its core is an ideological project to move the UK away from European social democracy and international multilateralism into an irredentist US-led Conservative sphere. There is a lot of US money going into this project, which is also backed by those close to Trump. The US FTA is important to this project for its symbolism and because the incompatibility of US rules with EU ones makes it harder for a future government to switch back to an EU sphere.

It isn't a vision that much shared outside Johnson's coterie. Voters like their social protections, lifestyles and jobs too much.

It's the americans now ?

I thought it was the Russians driving Brexit.

CatMan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. CatMan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fztkUuunI7g

Merci!

Sadly although I am trying to learn French, it's a slow process for me at the moment. I never learned it as a kid for various reasons (one of which being my French teacher was literally the worst person I've ever met).

DavidL

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Uni in London, then worked in Yorkshire, plus her husband is English. Does things to accents, even the strongest.

Only if you want it to, I spent many years in England and other countries around the world and have not changed my accent one bit.

It varies enormously from person to person. We moved around a lot when I was a kid as my dad was in the army. My accent never really changed but my brother always sounded like a local within a couple of weeks of arriving. My mother was the extreme, you could always tell who she was speaking to on the phone because she started to sound like them!

I'm not sure keeping my accent was an example of strong moral fibre, it was probably connected with me being slightly tone deaf.

DavidL

Alanbrooke said:

FF43 said:

There's a US special relationship for Brexit, which is the main point of interest right now. Brexit at its core is an ideological project to move the UK away from European social democracy and international multilateralism into an irredentist US-led Conservative sphere. There is a lot of US money going into this project, which is also backed by those close to Trump. The US FTA is important to this project for its symbolism and because the incompatibility of US rules with EU ones makes it harder for a future government to switch back to an EU sphere.

It isn't a vision that much shared outside Johnson's coterie. Voters like their social protections, lifestyles and jobs too much.

It's the americans now ?

I thought it was the Russians driving Brexit.

That's nothing I thought it was a bus.

Nigelb

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Uni in London, then worked in Yorkshire, plus her husband is English. Does things to accents, even the strongest.

Only if you want it to, I spent many years in England and other countries around the world and have not changed my accent one bit.

Why are we not surprised ?

Would you refuse to speak French if in France ?
The principle is exactly the same.

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

I heard Jo Swinson on Sky News this morning. I reckon she’s trying to hide her Scottish accent.

You would be hard pushed to know she was born in Scotland, desperate to show how English she really is just like the anti Scottish English immigrants on here, Carlotta, TGOHF.

Uni in London, then worked in Yorkshire, plus her husband is English. Does things to accents, even the strongest.

Only if you want it to, I spent many years in England and other countries around the world and have not changed my accent one bit.

It varies enormously from person to person. We moved around a lot when I was a kid as my dad was in the army. My accent never really changed but my brother always sounded like a local within a couple of weeks of arriving. My mother was the extreme, you could always tell who she was speaking to on the phone because she started to sound like them!

I'm not sure keeping my accent was an example of strong moral fibre, it was probably connected with me being slightly tone deaf.

I tend to pick up the accent of the person to whom I am talking. I worked in Lancashire for a few years after college and could hear myself using local terms.

Nigelb

Is this the kind of trade deal we are likely to see proposed by Trump ?

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201908260020.html
Lighthizer said the deal, which covered agriculture, industrial tariffs and digital trade, would open up Japanese markets to U.S. goods and lead to a substantial reduction in tariffs on such items as beef.

Japan imports about $14 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products, and the agreement will open up markets to over $7 billion of such products, Lighthizer said, adding that beef, pork, wheat, dairy products, wine, and ethanol would benefit.

Trump said Japan has agreed to buy excess U.S. corn that is burdening farmers as a result of the tariff dispute between Washington and Beijing.

There was little information on what Japan gained from the deal...