• In asking the police and the gendarmerie to interview during the Gilet Jaune protests, the government has provoked a loss of confidence in law enforcement — 62% pic.twitter.com/ovQUOL4ZUr
The French state has effectively lost control of the suburbs of Paris, as well as large tracts of the North / NW parts of Paris. Try walking by Stade de France at night.
++++
St Denis!
Incredible. Went 2-3 years ago
It was like walking in a particularly lawless part of Cairo, yet with Westminster Abbey at its heart. Bizarre
However, we have no cause for complacency. France is just confronting the later stage of Muslim immigration earlier than us, we will soon have the same crisis. Allowing footballers to stop a game to break the Ramadan fast ensures that hardcore Muslims will come for more, and more, until we entirely surrender and then the people revolt
Got to be a serious chance Le Pen will be elected on this. No wonder Macron is turning into a weird French Farage
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues
Thus similar to the foresight shown in the 20th century by Tory PMs Baldwin & Chamberlain.
Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .
Or it might be argued the Wilson Government in deciding to pull out of the Persian Gulf (yes, it was 1971 and Heath but it was Healey and Wilson who made the announcement in 1968).
Imagine what the world would have looked like if we had stayed there. For a start, the OPEC oil boycotts in 1973 and beyond probably wouldn't have happened or would have been diminished in power by Britain effectively having a hold on the Gulf. There is a decent chance the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened because the Shah would not have embarked on his spending spree on the military. Iraq would have been kept in its place.
If you want an awful foreign policy decision, that is very much up there.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Royal Navy?
As Mr Ed suggest, Fortress Heligoland would have made a dandy advance base for RN, interdicting German shipping lanes. AND a standing challenged to Kaiserliche Marine, which would have been under serious pressure to neutralize if not subdue it. PLUS would have made RN's North Sea strategy way more easy & effective.
All in all, a major war asset that Britain pissed away for a mess of pottage.
And why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap? The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal force, so such a blockade would have been very difficult. Plus minefields.
Stat: 10% of the concrete used on the Atlantic Wall by Twitler was in the Channel Islands.
As far as the cladding issue is concerned it all seem pretty clear to me.
If the cladding met the regs but were nevertheless a risk to life the regs were not fit for purpose. the governments error and they should pay.
If they didn't meet the regs then the builder/building control are at fault and the builder and whoever signed off on the building be council/nhbc etc should pay.
Govt will say not our fault. Builder will say not our fault. Council will say not our fault. NHBC will say not our fault.
Leaseholders wont know who is at fault, and will find it extremely costly, difficult and time consuming (5-10 years?) to successfully sue any of the above.
Two separate issues
1. who should pay the cost
2. How do you make it happen.
I agree that 2. would be difficult without political support but it doesn't stop 1. being the right way to apply the costs.
Sure, but seeing as it is a safety issue we cant wait years for each individual block to be decided in the courts. For one thing we dont have enough court resources to deal with existing court case covid backlogs anyway.
Either the govt needs to pay up front and claim back what it can where it can prove liability, or it needs to share the cost around govt, insurers, builders, freeholders and leaseholders through legislation.
It shamefully missed the chance to do either in the fire safety bill this week.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues
Thus similar to the foresight shown in the 20th century by Tory PMs Baldwin & Chamberlain.
Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .
Or it might be argued the Wilson Government in deciding to pull out of the Persian Gulf (yes, it was 1971 and Heath but it was Healey and Wilson who made the announcement in 1968).
Imagine what the world would have looked like if we had stayed there. For a start, the OPEC oil boycotts in 1973 and beyond probably wouldn't have happened or would have been diminished in power by Britain effectively having a hold on the Gulf. There is a decent chance the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened because the Shah would not have embarked on his spending spree on the military. Iraq would have been kept in its place.
If you want an awful foreign policy decision, that is very much up there.
Not sure I agree. After all, US Navy had & continues to have significant presence & clout in these highly strategic waters.
IF it was an error - and personally don't think it was, rather fiscal necessity - then still NOT in same league as Munich.
And why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap? The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal force, so such a blockade would have been very difficult. Plus minefields.
Stat: 10% of the concrete used on the Atlantic Wall by Twitler was in the Channel Islands.
Don't think that made possession of Heligoland LESS important. Still a huge strategic factor however you sliced it.
Re: WWI U-boats, their main base IIRC was Zeebrugge on Belgian coast.
Re: WWII concreting of Channel Islands, tremendous contribution to the war effort - the ALLIED war effort!
Let's try and come up with an equitable solution - the Gov't said it isn't putting it in in the latest bill due to complexity; and not because it wants to dodge the issue* ... lets take them at their word. 1st up if the developer was using stuff they shouldn't have/bending the rules they need to be bang to rights. If the company has been dissolved, the former directors ought to be criminally liable.
Now supposing they played by the rules and followed fire safety protocols at the time. They can't be liable. So the freeholder of the block is next down the chain - of course they will try and pass on remedial costs to the leaseholder. Both the freeholder and the leaseholder of the individual apartments will claim they shouldn't be liable as like the developer nothing came up and nothing would have come up at the time of building/flat purchase.
The flats do have a value, albeit impaired. That's £x - £y where £x is the normal market value of the flats and £y is the leaseholder's fair share of putting the entire building right. If £y > £x then the flats are in true negative equity; the block is worthless and needs demolishing in order to create safe flats rather than bothering with remedial work. It blows for the flat owners and building freeholders but a sale should be made in a fair market for the cost of the land less demolition & other costs so safe flats or w/e can be built. Everyone takes a hit in this instance.
If £x is > £y then the work could go ahead but with the Gov't initially paying and a charge on the flats be put in place for the value of the work. Does it rank ahead of the mortgage ? What happens if the owner is mortgaged to the hilt anyway ? The Gov't may already have a charge of sorts if help to buy has been used. This starts to get trickier than Scotland's share of pensions post independence.... *Perhaps that can WAS being kicked down the road after all.
And why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap? The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal force, so such a blockade would have been very difficult. Plus minefields.
Stat: 10% of the concrete used on the Atlantic Wall by Twitler was in the Channel Islands.
Don't think that made possession of Heligoland LESS important. Still a huge strategic factor however you sliced it.
Re: WWI U-boats, their main base IIRC was Zeebrugge on Belgian coast.
Re: WWII concreting of Channel Islands, tremendous contribution to the war effort - the ALLIED war effort!
There was quite a Parliamentary debate about Operation Big Bang in 1950.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.
I’m still pissed about how much George Osborne gouged me for when I bought my house
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues
Thus similar to the foresight shown in the 20th century by Tory PMs Baldwin & Chamberlain.
Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .
Or it might be argued the Wilson Government in deciding to pull out of the Persian Gulf (yes, it was 1971 and Heath but it was Healey and Wilson who made the announcement in 1968).
Imagine what the world would have looked like if we had stayed there. For a start, the OPEC oil boycotts in 1973 and beyond probably wouldn't have happened or would have been diminished in power by Britain effectively having a hold on the Gulf. There is a decent chance the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened because the Shah would not have embarked on his spending spree on the military. Iraq would have been kept in its place.
If you want an awful foreign policy decision, that is very much up there.
Not sure I agree. After all, US Navy had & continues to have significant presence & clout in these highly strategic waters.
IF it was an error - and personally don't think it was, rather fiscal necessity - then still NOT in same league as Munich.
While Britain and France were not ready to fight for the Sudetenland, the big mistake was to convince Stalin that the British and French were unwilling to fight. Hence the Molotov Von Ribbentrop pact.
In practice, I am not sure what we could have done to defend Czechoslovskia.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues
Thus similar to the foresight shown in the 20th century by Tory PMs Baldwin & Chamberlain.
Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .
Or it might be argued the Wilson Government in deciding to pull out of the Persian Gulf (yes, it was 1971 and Heath but it was Healey and Wilson who made the announcement in 1968).
Imagine what the world would have looked like if we had stayed there. For a start, the OPEC oil boycotts in 1973 and beyond probably wouldn't have happened or would have been diminished in power by Britain effectively having a hold on the Gulf. There is a decent chance the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened because the Shah would not have embarked on his spending spree on the military. Iraq would have been kept in its place.
If you want an awful foreign policy decision, that is very much up there.
Not sure I agree. After all, US Navy had & continues to have significant presence & clout in these highly strategic waters.
IF it was an error - and personally don't think it was, rather fiscal necessity - then still NOT in same league as Munich.
We would have retained effective political control of the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain so these countries would not have joined any boycott and it is doubtful Kuwait would have strayed out of line. It is hard to see OPEC being so anti-western, with what would have been a major military presence smack bang in its centre.
https://twitter.com/RoyChaudhuri/status/1388093905854418945 I know nothing about cricket, but had a fantastic time watching a Test at Edgbaston. It's mainly an excuse to sit in the sunshine and drink all day. Also, the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football...
"the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football..."
Check out the tailgating in the parking lots of US football stadiums. Esp. college football in the South and other places where the locals are SERIOUS about their cooking.
Personally recommend LSU games at Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge.
You may have to bring your own pâté, but guarantee you can swap it for some andouille!
Try the Easter Monday point to point at Hackwood Park or the celebration of George III’s birthday at Windsor for really superior tailgating parties
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.
I’m still pissed about how much George Osborne gouged me for when I bought my house
Lesson learned - NEVER retain a real estate agent who is moonlighting as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues
Thus similar to the foresight shown in the 20th century by Tory PMs Baldwin & Chamberlain.
Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .
Or it might be argued the Wilson Government in deciding to pull out of the Persian Gulf (yes, it was 1971 and Heath but it was Healey and Wilson who made the announcement in 1968).
Imagine what the world would have looked like if we had stayed there. For a start, the OPEC oil boycotts in 1973 and beyond probably wouldn't have happened or would have been diminished in power by Britain effectively having a hold on the Gulf. There is a decent chance the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened because the Shah would not have embarked on his spending spree on the military. Iraq would have been kept in its place.
If you want an awful foreign policy decision, that is very much up there.
Not sure I agree. After all, US Navy had & continues to have significant presence & clout in these highly strategic waters.
IF it was an error - and personally don't think it was, rather fiscal necessity - then still NOT in same league as Munich.
While Britain and France were not ready to fight for the Sudetenland, the big mistake was to convince Stalin that the British and French were unwilling to fight. Hence the Molotov Von Ribbentrop pact.
In practice, I am not sure what we could have done to defend Czechoslovskia.
It's a question whether we would have had to. The Czech army was one of the best in Europe, its tanks were superior to what the Germans had (mainly Panzer Is and IIs) and with an effective artillery force. In any war, it would have given the Germans a very bloody nose, if not more. A number of German Generals were also ready to move against Hitler.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.
I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.
I’m still pissed about how much George Osborne gouged me for when I bought my house
Think about how pissed millions of people are about what £11m of donations to the Tory party from property developers buys in the way of resistance to making property developers liable for removal of flammable cladding.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
https://twitter.com/RoyChaudhuri/status/1388093905854418945 I know nothing about cricket, but had a fantastic time watching a Test at Edgbaston. It's mainly an excuse to sit in the sunshine and drink all day. Also, the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football...
"the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football..."
Check out the tailgating in the parking lots of US football stadiums. Esp. college football in the South and other places where the locals are SERIOUS about their cooking.
Personally recommend LSU games at Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge.
You may have to bring your own pâté, but guarantee you can swap it for some andouille!
Try the Easter Monday point to point at Hackwood Park or the celebration of George III’s birthday at Windsor for really superior tailgating parties
IF an outsider turned up, and wanted to boil up an olympic-size cauldron full of crawfish OR roast a whole ox on a spit, would that be ok?
Both those things COULD be possible out in the parking lot, when LSU plays 'Bama in Death Valley.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
This really is the most pathetic bleating. Will Scotland be treating people living in England, Wales and N Ireland like terrorists as well by not paying their pensions?
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
Just how exactly would that be treating rUK nationals like terrorists? He's talking about the people that won't be UK citizens, i.e. the vast majority of them. Countries tend not to go around paying the pensions of people from elsewhere.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
Presumably a much smaller Tory lead with the ABC1s, who are much more likely to turn out for the locals.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
This Poots guy may well have the traits and views ascribed by Green Machine. Plenty do. BUT. He is also a Young Earth Creationist. He literally believes the Earth is barely 6 000 years old. What a shining example of a dynamic, forward looking UK that would be were he to be First Minister.
That’s not true. It’s at least 6,025 if you believe ++Usher
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
Just how exactly would that be treating rUK nationals like terrorists? He's talking about the people that won't be UK citizens, i.e. the vast majority of them. Countries tend not to go around paying the pensions of people from elsewhere.
I'm actually EXCLUDING these who aren't rUK citizens - most of the people in Scotland - as I did earlier today.
There are peoiple who will still be rUK subjects with accrued pension rights.
There are people on PB today demanding that these people lose their pensions rights for living in Scotland.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
How does that make sense?
It is not PB Tories, it is every non Scottish poster, plus some Scots. And the pensions are not withdrawn but paid for by the Scottish govt.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
How does that make sense?
It doesn't. An Irish type deal post Indy is the only viable one, and there is precedent.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Yours truly agrees with you on this point, and ditto for US Democrats.
Do NOT have to embrace racism and xenophobia. Just act like Average White People are people too.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Out of interest, what are these peculiarly working-class values that Labour despises?
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Labour has a mountain to climb. I'm not sure that things aren't even worse than the party's supposed nadir in the 1980s.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
How many times did the German Navy shell Whitby, Hartlepool and Scarborough AFTER the initial raids of 1914?
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer ThisDown pointing backhand index Quote Tweet President Biden @POTUS
United States government official · 29 Apr Trickle-down economics has never worked.
It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and middle out.
What's he gonna do then?
Serious question; Is he going to tax the American rich like a European social democrat? That would be quite something. Yet I doubt it
Uncle Joe won't - and doesn't have to - go nearly THAT far. Just a wee bit o' class war, with suburban kulaks as part of the proletariat.
Thus helping the country AND stealing Bannon-Trumpsky's wash right off the line.
Very strange change of emphasis from still-president Trump. Is he doing this to discredit the legacy of the recently deceased Biden? Political genius that he is.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
Just how exactly would that be treating rUK nationals like terrorists? He's talking about the people that won't be UK citizens, i.e. the vast majority of them. Countries tend not to go around paying the pensions of people from elsewhere.
I'm actually EXCLUDING these who aren't rUK citizens - most of the people in Scotland - as I did earlier today.
There are peoiple who will still be rUK subjects with accrued pension rights.
There are people on PB today demanding that these people lose their pensions rights for living in Scotland.
Well that won't happen, and I assume the Scottish government will be picking up the tabs for Scottish people living in England.
This Poots guy may well have the traits and views ascribed by Green Machine. Plenty do. BUT. He is also a Young Earth Creationist. He literally believes the Earth is barely 6 000 years old. What a shining example of a dynamic, forward looking UK that would be were he to be First Minister.
That’s not true. It’s at least 6,025 if you believe ++Usher
Poots shaves 4 years off of Ussher's estimate. He says 4000 BCE versus the Archbishop's 4004.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
How many times did the German Navy shell Whitby, Hartlepool and Scarborough AFTER the initial raids of 1914?
Different problem. WE're talking about British domination of the approaches to the Jade and the Ems, 1793-1814 style. Didn't happen.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer ThisDown pointing backhand index Quote Tweet President Biden @POTUS
United States government official · 29 Apr Trickle-down economics has never worked.
It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and middle out.
What's he gonna do then?
Serious question; Is he going to tax the American rich like a European social democrat? That would be quite something. Yet I doubt it
Uncle Joe won't - and doesn't have to - go nearly THAT far. Just a wee bit o' class war, with suburban kulaks as part of the proletariat.
Thus helping the country AND stealing Bannon-Trumpsky's wash right off the line.
Very strange change of emphasis from still-president Trump. Is he doing this to discredit the legacy of the recently deceased Biden? Political genius that he is.
Politico-com - Trump’s Battle to Win the First 100 Days The former president has been on an increasingly manic crusade to knock his successor and buff his own battered legacy.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
Just how exactly would that be treating rUK nationals like terrorists? He's talking about the people that won't be UK citizens, i.e. the vast majority of them. Countries tend not to go around paying the pensions of people from elsewhere.
I'm actually EXCLUDING these who aren't rUK citizens - most of the people in Scotland - as I did earlier today.
There are peoiple who will still be rUK subjects with accrued pension rights.
There are people on PB today demanding that these people lose their pensions rights for living in Scotland.
Well that won't happen, and I assume the Scottish government will be picking up the tabs for Scottish people living in England.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The British fleet wouldn't have split though. It would have had a lot more advance notice of German intentions and that would have been key. Scheer's strategy of splitting the British fleet was entirely dependent on the British not knowing where his fleet was so he could lure them into a trap. With a British controlled Heligoland, that would have been nigh on impossible - the Grand Fleet would have known exactly where the HSF was heading.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Out of interest, what are these peculiarly working-class values that Labour despises?
Having a patriotic interest in your country for a start.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.
Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.
I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Labour has a mountain to climb. I'm not sure that things aren't even worse than the party's supposed nadir in the 1980s.
Potentially even more worse. In the 1980s, class was still a powerful force in voting giving Labour a base from which to build. At the moment, it's penned into the cities with a number of vulnerable outposts scattered in the North and Midlands.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.
Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.
I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The British fleet wouldn't have split though. It would have had a lot more advance notice of German intentions and that would have been key. Scheer's strategy of splitting the British fleet was entirely dependent on the British not knowing where his fleet was so he could lure them into a trap. With a British controlled Heligoland, that would have been nigh on impossible - the Grand Fleet would have known exactly where the HSF was heading.
Interesting point. But if they sortied at night or in fog, sans radar?
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Labour has a mountain to climb. I'm not sure that things aren't even worse than the party's supposed nadir in the 1980s.
Potentially even more worse. In the 1980s, class was still a powerful force in voting giving Labour a base from which to build. At the moment, it's penned into the cities with a number of vulnerable outposts scattered in the North and Midlands.
Don't forget Wales!
I don't think we're anywhere near the end of Labour, but if it were, it's pretty clear Wales would be the last significant hold out beyond isolated pockets in East Ham and Liverpool.
NEW: Survation poll for the Mail finds Tory lead down to one point over Labour (Con 39, Lab 38) as Boris Johnson’s popularity suffers in the wake of the Downing Street flat affair
NEW: Survation poll for the Mail finds Tory lead down to one point over Labour (Con 39, Lab 38) as Boris Johnson’s popularity suffers in the wake of the Downing Street flat affair
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Yours truly agrees with you on this point, and ditto for US Democrats.
Do NOT have to embrace racism and xenophobia. Just act like Average White People are people too.
Yes, that is true @SeaShantyIrish2. One of the reasons gay marriage, for example, gained acceptance quickly was that it was framed as a fairness / love question, which people could relate to, including your average white people. If you opposed it, you just looked mean.
Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of the emphasis on race, transgender, xenophobia issues etc is being driven by a desire amongst certain parts of the influential classes to distract attention from what is the real area where there is a massive and growing problem, namely socio-economic differences.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
How does that make sense?
Your argument appears to be that on day 1 of an independent Scotland all pensions for Scottish residents would be paid by rUK, and Scottish taxpayers would have to pay nothing.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.
Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.
I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.
Good night Carnyx, thanks for the recommendation.
This has made me realise I need to fish out my copy of this rather interesting history
And as I recall the French considered capturing trhe Isle of Wight in 1793-1814 for (I assume) similar reasons, there's a study in one of the Portsmouth Papers on this, which I must also fish out.
And the British considered capturing one of the islands near Brest - they did try to do so. Something else to fish out.
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
I wouldn't want reactionary vox pop with my groceries. Can't you tick a box to opt out of it?
NEW: Survation poll for the Mail finds Tory lead down to one point over Labour (Con 39, Lab 38) as Boris Johnson’s popularity suffers in the wake of the Downing Street flat affair
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
How does that make sense?
Your argument appears to be that on day 1 of an independent Scotland all pensions for Scottish residents would be paid by rUK, and Scottish taxpayers would have to pay nothing.
That's completely illogical.
It's magical thinking of the worst kind.
No, no - only rUK subjects who have retained rUK citizenship, like in Australia etc.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.
Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.
I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.
Good night Carnyx, thanks for the recommendation.
This has made me realise I need to fish out my copy of this rather interesting history
And as I recall the French considered capturing trhe Isle of Wight in 1793-1814 for (I assume) similar reasons, there's a study in one of the Portsmouth Papers on this, which I must also fish out.
And the British considered capturing one of the islands near Brest - they did try to do so. Something else to fish out.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
How does that make sense?
These questions are easily solved. Imagine the outcome that hurts Scotland the most and helps England best, or is at least neutral.
That is what will happen with every detail of the divorce, because rUK - ie England - is the much stronger divorcing partner. We all saw what happened with Brexit, when the EU won almost every argument, simply because they are much bigger, this will be that times a hundred, because it will be infused with the venom of a terrible family break-up, because we have been in a fraternal and highly successful union for 300 years, which you seek to smash into pieces
It will be nasty and ugly. England will want a result
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.
Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.
I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.
Good night Carnyx, thanks for the recommendation.
This has made me realise I need to fish out my copy of this rather interesting history
And as I recall the French considered capturing trhe Isle of Wight in 1793-1814 for (I assume) similar reasons, there's a study in one of the Portsmouth Papers on this, which I must also fish out.
And the British considered capturing one of the islands near Brest - they did try to do so. Something else to fish out.
I'll take a look at that, thanks for flagging.
Can't remember what if anything it says about the interesting question you raise - but I enjoyed it anyway.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The British fleet wouldn't have split though. It would have had a lot more advance notice of German intentions and that would have been key. Scheer's strategy of splitting the British fleet was entirely dependent on the British not knowing where his fleet was so he could lure them into a trap. With a British controlled Heligoland, that would have been nigh on impossible - the Grand Fleet would have known exactly where the HSF was heading.
Interesting point. But if they sortied at night or in fog, sans radar?
NEW: Survation poll for the Mail finds Tory lead down to one point over Labour (Con 39, Lab 38) as Boris Johnson’s popularity suffers in the wake of the Downing Street flat affair
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
How does that make sense?
Your argument appears to be that on day 1 of an independent Scotland all pensions for Scottish residents would be paid by rUK, and Scottish taxpayers would have to pay nothing.
That's completely illogical.
It's magical thinking of the worst kind.
No, no - only rUK subjects who have retained rUK citizenship, like in Australia etc.
But I would think everyone in Scotland would initially still hold British passports wouldn't they? Or would everyone be forced to choose one or the other?
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.
I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)
The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.
Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.
I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.
Good night Carnyx, thanks for the recommendation.
This has made me realise I need to fish out my copy of this rather interesting history
And as I recall the French considered capturing trhe Isle of Wight in 1793-1814 for (I assume) similar reasons, there's a study in one of the Portsmouth Papers on this, which I must also fish out.
And the British considered capturing one of the islands near Brest - they did try to do so. Something else to fish out.
We did occupy Belle Ile de Mer in the Severn years war to help with the naval blockade.
A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.
Scotland becomes independent.
Who pays his future pension liability?
Who pays if he then moves to New York?
That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc
No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.
Who pays his UK state pension?
As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.
This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.
The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.
But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.
Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.
Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.
So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?
You really do need to wind your neck in.
If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.
How does that make sense?
Your argument appears to be that on day 1 of an independent Scotland all pensions for Scottish residents would be paid by rUK, and Scottish taxpayers would have to pay nothing.
That's completely illogical.
It's magical thinking of the worst kind.
No, no - only rUK subjects who have retained rUK citizenship, like in Australia etc.
But I would think everyone in Scotland would initially still hold British passports wouldn't they? Or would everyone be forced to choose one or the other?
Depends. Some people would have no claim on one side or the other. I am 100% Scottish by grandparents and residence and wouldn't expect to have a rUK passport. But some folk would be able to ask for both, I expect. E.g. someone with a Scottish parent but living in Birmingham could ask for a Scottish passport. Cf Ireland today.
James Melville Cherry blossom @JamesMelville · 4h The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?
Out of interest, what are these peculiarly working-class values that Labour despises?
Speaking just of England, (no idea how to comprehend W and S) the question can't be quite that simple, for if it were Tories would be romping home in Bootle and Knowsley and they aren't, quite the reverse. A correct answer - whatever that may be - needs to take account of Mansfield and Bootle and so on. There is no single working class. It seems to me that for the moment Labour hot spots need to be looked at in terms of: Strongly urban working class; Strongly BAME; Polly Toynbee territory/students. Where these are strongly present, singly or mixed up, Labour scores heavily. Where they are not Labour hold vanishingly few seats, and all those they do hold - even ones like Barnsley East - are threatened.
It looks as if the 'Working class' is a number of different species - at the very least major urban and smaller towns, with different attitudes. This ends up with a map looking like Labour belong, like red squirrels, to enclaves not connected to each other. Labour hold startlingly few of the Ipswich type seats for example.
Comments
++++
St Denis!
Incredible. Went 2-3 years ago
It was like walking in a particularly lawless part of Cairo, yet with Westminster Abbey at its heart. Bizarre
However, we have no cause for complacency. France is just confronting the later stage of Muslim immigration earlier than us, we will soon have the same crisis. Allowing footballers to stop a game to break the Ramadan fast ensures that hardcore Muslims will come for more, and more, until we entirely surrender and then the people revolt
Got to be a serious chance Le Pen will be elected on this. No wonder Macron is turning into a weird French Farage
Imagine what the world would have looked like if we had stayed there. For a start, the OPEC oil boycotts in 1973 and beyond probably wouldn't have happened or would have been diminished in power by Britain effectively having a hold on the Gulf. There is a decent chance the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened because the Shah would not have embarked on his spending spree on the military. Iraq would have been kept in its place.
If you want an awful foreign policy decision, that is very much up there.
https://www.newsweek.com/lin-wood-trump-white-house-biden-dead-qanon-1587710
As Mr Ed suggest, Fortress Heligoland would have made a dandy advance base for RN, interdicting German shipping lanes. AND a standing challenged to Kaiserliche Marine, which would have been under serious pressure to neutralize if not subdue it. PLUS would have made RN's North Sea strategy way more easy & effective.
All in all, a major war asset that Britain pissed away for a mess of pottage.
And why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap? The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal force, so such a blockade would have been very difficult. Plus minefields.
Stat: 10% of the concrete used on the Atlantic Wall by Twitler was in the Channel Islands.
Either the govt needs to pay up front and claim back what it can where it can prove liability, or it needs to share the cost around govt, insurers, builders, freeholders and leaseholders through legislation.
It shamefully missed the chance to do either in the fire safety bill this week.
IF it was an error - and personally don't think it was, rather fiscal necessity - then still NOT in same league as Munich.
I mean that in the original sense.
Re: WWI U-boats, their main base IIRC was Zeebrugge on Belgian coast.
Re: WWII concreting of Channel Islands, tremendous contribution to the war effort - the ALLIED war effort!
IF none of 23 candidates on ballot get majority, then top two vote-getters regardless of party or number of votes advance to May 24 runoff election.
1st up if the developer was using stuff they shouldn't have/bending the rules they need to be bang to rights. If the company has been dissolved, the former directors ought to be criminally liable.
Now supposing they played by the rules and followed fire safety protocols at the time. They can't be liable.
So the freeholder of the block is next down the chain - of course they will try and pass on remedial costs to the leaseholder. Both the freeholder and the leaseholder of the individual apartments will claim they shouldn't be liable as like the developer nothing came up and nothing would have come up at the time of building/flat purchase.
The flats do have a value, albeit impaired. That's £x - £y where £x is the normal market value of the flats and £y is the leaseholder's fair share of putting the entire building right.
If £y > £x then the flats are in true negative equity; the block is worthless and needs demolishing in order to create safe flats rather than bothering with remedial work. It blows for the flat owners and building freeholders but a sale should be made in a fair market for the cost of the land less demolition & other costs so safe flats or w/e can be built. Everyone takes a hit in this instance.
If £x is > £y then the work could go ahead but with the Gov't initially paying and a charge on the flats be put in place for the value of the work.Does it rank ahead of the mortgage ? What happens if the owner is mortgaged to the hilt anyway ? The Gov't may already have a charge of sorts if help to buy has been used. This starts to get trickier than Scotland's share of pensions post independence....
*Perhaps that can WAS being kicked down the road after all.
First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.
Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.
Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.
Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.
In practice, I am not sure what we could have done to defend Czechoslovskia.
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
ThisDown pointing backhand index
Quote Tweet
President Biden
@POTUS
United States government official
· 29 Apr
Trickle-down economics has never worked.
It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and middle out.
Serious question; Is he going to tax the American rich like a European social democrat? That would be quite something. Yet I doubt it
You really do need to wind your neck in.
@JamesMelville
·
4h
The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.
Both those things COULD be possible out in the parking lot, when LSU plays 'Bama in Death Valley.
Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.
But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.
Reckon with this, because it is true
The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.
How does that make sense?
Thus helping the country AND stealing Bannon-Trumpsky's wash right off the line.
There are peoiple who will still be rUK subjects with accrued pension rights.
There are people on PB today demanding that these people lose their pensions rights for living in Scotland.
What exactly is happening in France right now? It would be bizarre to see 20 ex generals call for a military coup.
Can Le Pen capitalise on the emerging mood..
Do NOT have to embrace racism and xenophobia. Just act like Average White People are people too.
Is he doing this to discredit the legacy of the recently deceased Biden?
Political genius that he is.
But maybe he's just rounding down?
The former president has been on an increasingly manic crusade to knock his successor and buff his own battered legacy.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/29/donald-trump-100-days-484926
I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.
Anyway, something to contemplate. Off now.
I don't think we're anywhere near the end of Labour, but if it were, it's pretty clear Wales would be the last significant hold out beyond isolated pockets in East Ham and Liverpool.
https://twitter.com/Daniel_J_Martin/status/1388236589747277827
It's just a bubble story
Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of the emphasis on race, transgender, xenophobia issues etc is being driven by a desire amongst certain parts of the influential classes to distract attention from what is the real area where there is a massive and growing problem, namely socio-economic differences.
That's completely illogical.
It's magical thinking of the worst kind.
In Hartlepool.
https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Heligoland-Britain-Germany-Struggle-North/dp/0199672466/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=heligoland&qid=1619816530&sr=8-3
And as I recall the French considered capturing trhe Isle of Wight in 1793-1814 for (I assume) similar reasons, there's a study in one of the Portsmouth Papers on this, which I must also fish out.
And the British considered capturing one of the islands near Brest - they did try to do so. Something else to fish out.
Reminds me of GE2017, Survation had it at as a 1% Tory lead, others had double digit leads.
That is what will happen with every detail of the divorce, because rUK - ie England - is the much stronger divorcing partner. We all saw what happened with Brexit, when the EU won almost every argument, simply because they are much bigger, this will be that times a hundred, because it will be infused with the venom of a terrible family break-up, because we have been in a fraternal and highly successful union for 300 years, which you seek to smash into pieces
It will be nasty and ugly. England will want a result
Night all.
"India’s ruling party admits for first time that ‘responsibility is ours’ for Covid crisis".
Having learned lessons from previous elections - all could be correct, and I shan’t be ridiculing any of them
11 point or 1 point lead?
Split the difference in my view.
Opinium tomorrow
It looks as if the 'Working class' is a number of different species - at the very least major urban and smaller towns, with different attitudes. This ends up with a map looking like Labour belong, like red squirrels, to enclaves not connected to each other. Labour hold startlingly few of the Ipswich type seats for example.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
Data not dates is the slogan.
Dates not data is the strategy.