It's the Quantum of Solace of the MCU. I'm still not entirely clear what exactly happened.
I liked Quantum of Solace. Had most of what makes a good Bond film for me. They got plenty crapper after that, with that 60's pastiche with bald Blofeld being the total travesty of them all.
Had its moments but the fact it was written in the middle of a writers strike was painfully obvious
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Yes well I am a Unionist, not an English nationalist
Maybe so but you do support the English Nationalist Party
Must be annoying. They've done two pre-announcements now and there's a 3rd coming on Monday when (hopefully) England is basking in having put away those demons and won a tournament. 2 shots at it and there's still half the country who think like me and won't comply with FREEDOM DAY we're all safe pandemic over go back to your dreary lives.
Perhaps - and its just an idea - there's actually not a majority or anything close to it out there of people who think like PB Clowm Apologists like you and Charles and Big G? I know we're going to hear "but we have a majority of 80" and so what - when the alternative choice was a lunatic voting for a clown makes sense.
But the clown is supposed to be a populist. Can instinctively feel what people think and give it to them. So why is he so badly wrong and out of touch on this one? Philip on here yesterday reduced to imploring that he ignores public opinion and leads regardless of what people think.
When the desired outcome is to change the way that people act and behave, you can't command them to do something that self-evidently feels like a risk. Some of you complain about people like me wanting to control people forever. Far from it, yet it is you and yours trying to instruct people to do something they don't believe is safe or sensible.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Apologies if this is obvious and I’m preaching to the converted but British politics at the moment is divided into Tory and Anti-Tory. We Anti-Tories take comfort in our shared ground of hating Johnson and his myriad and obvious flaws. However, that’s all we’ve got in common and all those converted by that line have now been converted. What are we offering as an alternative to convert more?
At first look it’s hopeful. The Anti-Tories are easily the majority, even in England alone, but accross the U.K. we are split into Lab, LD, SNP, Green and PC. Lab is itself split into Corbynite Tendancy and Continuity Blairite. Each of these Anti-Tory factions hate each other as much as they do Johnson - if not more. To justify this we paint each other as some alternate form of Tory. The Corbynite Tendancy call the Continuity Blairites “Red Tories”, many Lab and LD peeps call the SNP “Tartan Tories”, everyone calls the LD’s the “Tories little helpers”. I’ve yet to see the Greens and PC painted that way admittedly but I’m sure it’s done.
So, while I agree with everything the Johnson haters on here and elsewhere post about him, such posts annoy me as they’re not so much preaching to the converted as screaming into the void. We need an alternative. What? A “Progressive Alliance”??? What policies would such an alliance have? The Labour Party can’t seem to come up with a cohesive set of policies. The SNP has one big policy that applies the Scotland with ripple effects on the rUK and a lot of smaller polices that effect Scotland alone. The LD’s can’t hope to have a significant impact in such an alliance. The Greens have might some that could form common ground, I suppose, and perhaps provide cover for the others, but it’s a big “might”.
The bottom line is that I agree with 90% of what RP says but it’s not enough anymore. Those of us who don’t like this shower need to start thinking about what we can give up to work with the others that don’t. I personally don’t even know who to vote for anymore. Simply not liking Johnson and criticising his government isn’t enough. It isn’t nearly enough. Yet even the main opposition party can’t come up with an alternate programme.
My solution was simple - leave the country. I dislike the regressive "fuck you" nature of the English psyche, decided I wanted better for my kids, and moved north. You always get the correct result in any given election because that is what people vote for. And in England, this is what you want.
Not always, in 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory and got a Labour government. In 2010 and 2017 the Tories had a majority in England but it was a hung parliament UK wide.
On current polling the Tories will almost certainly win a majority in England in 2024 again but there is a chance Starmer could become UK PM with SNP and LD support in a hung parliament even if the Tories win most seats
The elections you speak of were not elections in England. Which is why the correct result was gained in the UK-wide election.
I don't disagree but in 1974 there was no devolution, so it did not matter if England did not get the UK government it did not vote for.
Now however if Scotland or Wales get a UK Tory government they did not vote for they still have an SNP Holyrood or Labour Senedd government for much of their domestic policy.
If England gets a UK Labour-SNP government it did not vote for however it will just have to grin and bear it with no English Parliament and now it seems no longer even EVEL
A Labour/SNP government (which would never happen in a million years, but we'll let that one go) could just legislate to end EVEL if it chose to. Or it could frame legislation in such a way as to make it UK-wide. Or it could continue with this government's strategy of bypassing Parliament altogether. EVEL is not a magic bullet to protect the minority of people who vote Tory in England. It is merely a headline.
Indeed, so why should the Tories fail to leave it in position, but positively remove it? They'd have something to howl about if the mythical Labour gmt cancelled EVEL, so why lose that brownie point?
An interesting question for Conservatives:
Is a permanent Labour/SNP Westminster government a price worth paying to keep Scotland in the union ?
I suspect you would get results which SCONs would not like.
Though are SCONs really SCONs but instead SUs ?
Is the Unionist bit more important to them than the Conservative part ?
Whereas in England even Gove doesn't call himself a Unionist:
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
To repeat a point I have made directly to Mike Smithson via email, the increasingly common use of the unabbreviated F... word - well in evidence on this thread - now appears to attract no sanction from site moderators . This is not the case in respect of use of the B.... word - and implies that sanctions are applied on a very selective basis.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Yes well I am a Unionist, not an English nationalist
Maybe so but you do support the English Nationalist Party
Not true, otherwise it would be campaigning for English independence like the English Democrats used to and not even considering scapping EVEL without an English Parliament.
There would also be no Tory MPs in Scotland and Wales as there are now
She doesn’t give a time-span however. If she means a million dead in a year, that’s horrific. It implies a global death toll of 70 million, for a start. Possibly way more than that, if you factor in inferior health systems, general chaos. 100 million? 300 million?
However is she means an extra million dead over 10-15 years that’s very nasty but not apocalyptic. 600,000 die every year. So if this is her take, we will have 10% more deaths every year. Life expectancy will shrink, but not catastrophically
I doubt that 60k will die from COVID per year. Post vaccination if we get more than 5k deaths it would be a surprise. The virus would need to mutate quite significantly to start killing off 60k per year in a vaccinated population.
I have no real idea. Tho I note that this virus has already mutated faster and more perniciously than many virologists expected.
No it hasn't.
It has mutated far less effectively than most virologists were predicting. To the point where now, despite people's disbelief in the actual stats, it's a vanishingly minor illness and cause of death in the UK. For those healthy double vaccinated people in the UK the chances of dying from covid are next to zero.
Of 125 deaths in the UK fewer than 1 will bear any relation to covid and that's despite mass testing for it to the point of absurdity.
It's over. The people just need to be retrained.
The number of people admitted to hospital with Covid was up 56% yesterday week on week. Its really not over, not by a long shot. But the balance of risks has changed and so should our response.
It is over. 20 or 30 deaths a day is pifflingly small. 450 people die every day from cancer.
Perspective now urgently required.
Get jabbed, live your life. Period.
Yesterday it was 34 and up 62% in a week. At what point at that rate of increase does it cease to be "piffling"? We also have an increasing number of long Covid victims that are going to keep our hospitals busy for many years to come.
I am with you in that I think regulation should now be limited to the most extreme situations such as hospitals and care homes but I think claiming that this is "over" goes way too far and fails to recognise the risks we are still facing. If we go too far down that road we could end up in lockdown again.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 15m Dr Hopkins says the UK's coronavirus third wave is currently "three doubling times away from the peak, unless something changes". We're at 500 new hospital admissions a day now, opening up the prospect of 4,000 a day at the peak. Higher than April 2020's peak.
Making up numbers to suit his purposes.
Perhaps he could explain why Blackburn and Bolton didn't have hospital admissions anywhere near their peak.
But he couldn't because that would require explaining real world numbers rather than theoretical exponentials to infinity.
Someone was asking yesterday on here where we were in terms of the various models.
Here's a graph:
Russ Garrett @russss · 1h Still haven't got round to putting this on the website, but here are the latest hospitalisation numbers plotted in relation to the models presented at SAGE 92 (June 9th).
Must be annoying. They've done two pre-announcements now and there's a 3rd coming on Monday when (hopefully) England is basking in having put away those demons and won a tournament. 2 shots at it and there's still half the country who think like me and won't comply with FREEDOM DAY we're all safe pandemic over go back to your dreary lives.
Perhaps - and its just an idea - there's actually not a majority or anything close to it out there of people who think like PB Clowm Apologists like you and Charles and Big G? I know we're going to hear "but we have a majority of 80" and so what - when the alternative choice was a lunatic voting for a clown makes sense.
But the clown is supposed to be a populist. Can instinctively feel what people think and give it to them. So why is he so badly wrong and out of touch on this one? Philip on here yesterday reduced to imploring that he ignores public opinion and leads regardless of what people think.
When the desired outcome is to change the way that people act and behave, you can't command them to do something that self-evidently feels like a risk. Some of you complain about people like me wanting to control people forever. Far from it, yet it is you and yours trying to instruct people to do something they don't believe is safe or sensible.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Apologies if this is obvious and I’m preaching to the converted but British politics at the moment is divided into Tory and Anti-Tory. We Anti-Tories take comfort in our shared ground of hating Johnson and his myriad and obvious flaws. However, that’s all we’ve got in common and all those converted by that line have now been converted. What are we offering as an alternative to convert more?
At first look it’s hopeful. The Anti-Tories are easily the majority, even in England alone, but accross the U.K. we are split into Lab, LD, SNP, Green and PC. Lab is itself split into Corbynite Tendancy and Continuity Blairite. Each of these Anti-Tory factions hate each other as much as they do Johnson - if not more. To justify this we paint each other as some alternate form of Tory. The Corbynite Tendancy call the Continuity Blairites “Red Tories”, many Lab and LD peeps call the SNP “Tartan Tories”, everyone calls the LD’s the “Tories little helpers”. I’ve yet to see the Greens and PC painted that way admittedly but I’m sure it’s done.
So, while I agree with everything the Johnson haters on here and elsewhere post about him, such posts annoy me as they’re not so much preaching to the converted as screaming into the void. We need an alternative. What? A “Progressive Alliance”??? What policies would such an alliance have? The Labour Party can’t seem to come up with a cohesive set of policies. The SNP has one big policy that applies the Scotland with ripple effects on the rUK and a lot of smaller polices that effect Scotland alone. The LD’s can’t hope to have a significant impact in such an alliance. The Greens have might some that could form common ground, I suppose, and perhaps provide cover for the others, but it’s a big “might”.
The bottom line is that I agree with 90% of what RP says but it’s not enough anymore. Those of us who don’t like this shower need to start thinking about what we can give up to work with the others that don’t. I personally don’t even know who to vote for anymore. Simply not liking Johnson and criticising his government isn’t enough. It isn’t nearly enough. Yet even the main opposition party can’t come up with an alternate programme.
My solution was simple - leave the country. I dislike the regressive "fuck you" nature of the English psyche, decided I wanted better for my kids, and moved north. You always get the correct result in any given election because that is what people vote for. And in England, this is what you want.
Not always, in 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory and got a Labour government. In 2010 and 2017 the Tories had a majority in England but it was a hung parliament UK wide.
On current polling the Tories will almost certainly win a majority in England in 2024 again but there is a chance Starmer could become UK PM with SNP and LD support in a hung parliament even if the Tories win most seats
The elections you speak of were not elections in England. Which is why the correct result was gained in the UK-wide election.
I don't disagree but in 1974 there was no devolution, so it did not matter if England did not get the UK government it did not vote for.
Now however if Scotland or Wales get a UK Tory government they did not vote for they still have an SNP Holyrood or Labour Senedd government for much of their domestic policy.
If England gets a UK Labour-SNP government it did not vote for however it will just have to grin and bear it with no English Parliament and now it seems no longer even EVEL
A Labour/SNP government (which would never happen in a million years, but we'll let that one go) could just legislate to end EVEL if it chose to. Or it could frame legislation in such a way as to make it UK-wide. Or it could continue with this government's strategy of bypassing Parliament altogether. EVEL is not a magic bullet to protect the minority of people who vote Tory in England. It is merely a headline.
Indeed, so why should the Tories fail to leave it in position, but positively remove it? They'd have something to howl about if the mythical Labour gmt cancelled EVEL, so why lose that brownie point?
An interesting question for Conservatives:
Is a permanent Labour/SNP Westminster government a price worth paying to keep Scotland in the union ?
I suspect you would get results which SCONs would not like.
Though are SCONs really SCONs but instead SUs ?
Is the Unionist bit more important to them than the Conservative part ?
Whereas in England even Gove doesn't call himself a Unionist:
On the second point, that's interesting. How odd. But not illegal? After discovering that electoral law was fiddled in Sxcotland to allow the Labour Party to pretend to be a separate 'Scottish Labour Party' despite being a completely unified accounting unit, I have learnt to check the Electoral Commission bumf. In this case this seems to show that Mr Gove or at least his agent is legally permitted to claim that he is belonging to something called the 'Conservative Party' - there is a whole menu of things to choose from:
Someone was asking yesterday on here where we were in terms of the various models.
Here's a graph:
Russ Garrett @russss · 1h Still haven't got round to putting this on the website, but here are the latest hospitalisation numbers plotted in relation to the models presented at SAGE 92 (June 9th).
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Yes well I am a Unionist, not an English nationalist
Maybe so but you do support the English Nationalist Party
Not true, otherwise it would be campaigning for English independence like the English Democrats used to and not even considering scapping EVEL without an English Parliament.
There would also be no Tory MPs in Scotland and Wales as there are now
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Yes. Accuse the government of not caring enough about or knowing enough about the other nations, of focusing too much on England intentionally or otherwise, with detrimental effect on the UK Union, but that is not the same thing as being avowedly English nationalist, as its actions would be far, far different.
It's an enduring accusation, but it just is not true.
Is it unintentionally English nationalist in effect? A different accusation entirely.
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
Poor Nirish. Not to mention the Wight people and the Hebrideans etc.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
Not always very straight forward though, given that the need to cough or sneeze often comes suddenly out of the blue without any prior indication of illness etc.
It's the Quantum of Solace of the MCU. I'm still not entirely clear what exactly happened.
I liked Quantum of Solace. Had most of what makes a good Bond film for me. They got plenty crapper after that, with that 60's pastiche with bald Blofeld being the total travesty of them all.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
We are moving to the stage where advice is better than mandatory. It allows passengers to consider things like current infection rates, how crowded it is, differences between an open air platform and busy waiting room etc. At the moment the law mandates a mask on an empty open air platform, yet there is no need for a mask in such circumstances.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
Why do you think England winning will help on the road to the dissolution of the Union? I should say that nothing would please me more than a dissolution of the Union if you could rejoin the EU. I'd become Scottish in a heartbeat. I loathe the ugly isolationist country we've become. They're even talking about Liz Truss for PM!
Track record. 1966 was fantastic for both Plaid and the SNP, a gift that kept giving for over half a century.
We’d love to have you Roger. You are in good company as we take in refugees fleeing from England’s ugly Brexit revolution.
Given that the demographic and electoral consequences of 'white flight' from English cities and towns where middle-class (and now also working-class), mostly white English people have sought to move away from diverse multi-cultural areas, that will not be helping the cause of Scottish Independence. With Nicola Sturgeon and her acolytes at the helm, this is probably a moot point though.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
So with first doses down to the stragglers which should the government chose:
1) Open up vaccination to 16-17s ? 2) Reduce the second dose delay ? 3) Begin booster shots for six months after full vaccination ?
I have pointed this out before but 45.5m have received their first vaccine which is pretty much 87%. But that leaves nearly 7m adults who have not yet had 1 vaccine. That's not stragglers, that's a lot of people. At the current rate it would take roughly another 3 months to vaccinate them. Surely finding and persuading these people has to be our first priority?
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
Poor Nirish. Not to mention the Wight people and the Hebrideans etc.
Its the Scilly Isles that I always feel sorry for. Never mentioned and no one can figure out if they are in the U.K. or a Channel Island (it’s the former )
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Must be annoying. They've done two pre-announcements now and there's a 3rd coming on Monday when (hopefully) England is basking in having put away those demons and won a tournament. 2 shots at it and there's still half the country who think like me and won't comply with FREEDOM DAY we're all safe pandemic over go back to your dreary lives.
Perhaps - and its just an idea - there's actually not a majority or anything close to it out there of people who think like PB Clowm Apologists like you and Charles and Big G? I know we're going to hear "but we have a majority of 80" and so what - when the alternative choice was a lunatic voting for a clown makes sense.
But the clown is supposed to be a populist. Can instinctively feel what people think and give it to them. So why is he so badly wrong and out of touch on this one? Philip on here yesterday reduced to imploring that he ignores public opinion and leads regardless of what people think.
When the desired outcome is to change the way that people act and behave, you can't command them to do something that self-evidently feels like a risk. Some of you complain about people like me wanting to control people forever. Far from it, yet it is you and yours trying to instruct people to do something they don't believe is safe or sensible.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Apologies if this is obvious and I’m preaching to the converted but British politics at the moment is divided into Tory and Anti-Tory. We Anti-Tories take comfort in our shared ground of hating Johnson and his myriad and obvious flaws. However, that’s all we’ve got in common and all those converted by that line have now been converted. What are we offering as an alternative to convert more?
At first look it’s hopeful. The Anti-Tories are easily the majority, even in England alone, but accross the U.K. we are split into Lab, LD, SNP, Green and PC. Lab is itself split into Corbynite Tendancy and Continuity Blairite. Each of these Anti-Tory factions hate each other as much as they do Johnson - if not more. To justify this we paint each other as some alternate form of Tory. The Corbynite Tendancy call the Continuity Blairites “Red Tories”, many Lab and LD peeps call the SNP “Tartan Tories”, everyone calls the LD’s the “Tories little helpers”. I’ve yet to see the Greens and PC painted that way admittedly but I’m sure it’s done.
So, while I agree with everything the Johnson haters on here and elsewhere post about him, such posts annoy me as they’re not so much preaching to the converted as screaming into the void. We need an alternative. What? A “Progressive Alliance”??? What policies would such an alliance have? The Labour Party can’t seem to come up with a cohesive set of policies. The SNP has one big policy that applies the Scotland with ripple effects on the rUK and a lot of smaller polices that effect Scotland alone. The LD’s can’t hope to have a significant impact in such an alliance. The Greens have might some that could form common ground, I suppose, and perhaps provide cover for the others, but it’s a big “might”.
The bottom line is that I agree with 90% of what RP says but it’s not enough anymore. Those of us who don’t like this shower need to start thinking about what we can give up to work with the others that don’t. I personally don’t even know who to vote for anymore. Simply not liking Johnson and criticising his government isn’t enough. It isn’t nearly enough. Yet even the main opposition party can’t come up with an alternate programme.
My solution was simple - leave the country. I dislike the regressive "fuck you" nature of the English psyche, decided I wanted better for my kids, and moved north. You always get the correct result in any given election because that is what people vote for. And in England, this is what you want.
Not always, in 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory and got a Labour government. In 2010 and 2017 the Tories had a majority in England but it was a hung parliament UK wide.
On current polling the Tories will almost certainly win a majority in England in 2024 again but there is a chance Starmer could become UK PM with SNP and LD support in a hung parliament even if the Tories win most seats
The elections you speak of were not elections in England. Which is why the correct result was gained in the UK-wide election.
I don't disagree but in 1974 there was no devolution, so it did not matter if England did not get the UK government it did not vote for.
Now however if Scotland or Wales get a UK Tory government they did not vote for they still have an SNP Holyrood or Labour Senedd government for much of their domestic policy.
If England gets a UK Labour-SNP government it did not vote for however it will just have to grin and bear it with no English Parliament and now it seems no longer even EVEL
A Labour/SNP government (which would never happen in a million years, but we'll let that one go) could just legislate to end EVEL if it chose to. Or it could frame legislation in such a way as to make it UK-wide. Or it could continue with this government's strategy of bypassing Parliament altogether. EVEL is not a magic bullet to protect the minority of people who vote Tory in England. It is merely a headline.
Indeed, so why should the Tories fail to leave it in position, but positively remove it? They'd have something to howl about if the mythical Labour gmt cancelled EVEL, so why lose that brownie point?
An interesting question for Conservatives:
Is a permanent Labour/SNP Westminster government a price worth paying to keep Scotland in the union ?
I suspect you would get results which SCONs would not like.
Though are SCONs really SCONs but instead SUs ?
Is the Unionist bit more important to them than the Conservative part ?
Whereas in England even Gove doesn't call himself a Unionist:
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Yes. Accuse the government of not caring enough about or knowing enough about the other nations, of focusing too much on England intentionally or otherwise, with detrimental effect on the UK Union, but that is not the same thing as being avowedly English nationalist, as its actions would be far, far different.
It's an enduring accusation, but it just is not true.
Is it unintentionally English nationalist in effect? A different accusation entirely.
you can try and hide it any way you want or try and dress it up but it does not change the facts, totally and completely English nationalist I am afraid.
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
I have had a very bad attack of asthma this last week. One of the consequences has been appalling coughing fits. I have not been out much in consequence. But when I have gone out I have not worn a mask because (a) I am exempt but (b) mainly because it is really quite horrible to wear when one is already struggling to breathe.
You are in danger of making an assumption about a person without knowing why they are coughing. And, no, I am not wearing a lanyard about me. I'm not some sort of leper to be marked.
People should not travel if they are ill. They should use handkerchiefs if they sneeze or cough. They would be wise to avoid places where there are likely to be highly vulnerable people. But we cannot live in hermetically sealed bubbles. And if you'd berated me I'd have used what breath I had to give you a piece of my mind!
She doesn’t give a time-span however. If she means a million dead in a year, that’s horrific. It implies a global death toll of 70 million, for a start. Possibly way more than that, if you factor in inferior health systems, general chaos. 100 million? 300 million?
However is she means an extra million dead over 10-15 years that’s very nasty but not apocalyptic. 600,000 die every year. So if this is her take, we will have 10% more deaths every year. Life expectancy will shrink, but not catastrophically
I doubt that 60k will die from COVID per year. Post vaccination if we get more than 5k deaths it would be a surprise. The virus would need to mutate quite significantly to start killing off 60k per year in a vaccinated population.
I have no real idea. Tho I note that this virus has already mutated faster and more perniciously than many virologists expected.
No it hasn't.
It has mutated far less effectively than most virologists were predicting. To the point where now, despite people's disbelief in the actual stats, it's a vanishingly minor illness and cause of death in the UK. For those healthy double vaccinated people in the UK the chances of dying from covid are next to zero.
Of 125 deaths in the UK fewer than 1 will bear any relation to covid and that's despite mass testing for it to the point of absurdity.
It's over. The people just need to be retrained.
The number of people admitted to hospital with Covid was up 56% yesterday week on week. Its really not over, not by a long shot. But the balance of risks has changed and so should our response.
It is over. 20 or 30 deaths a day is pifflingly small. 450 people die every day from cancer.
Perspective now urgently required.
Get jabbed, live your life. Period.
Yesterday it was 34 and up 62% in a week. At what point at that rate of increase does it cease to be "piffling"? We also have an increasing number of long Covid victims that are going to keep our hospitals busy for many years to come.
I am with you in that I think regulation should now be limited to the most extreme situations such as hospitals and care homes but I think claiming that this is "over" goes way too far and fails to recognise the risks we are still facing. If we go too far down that road we could end up in lockdown again.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 15m Dr Hopkins says the UK's coronavirus third wave is currently "three doubling times away from the peak, unless something changes". We're at 500 new hospital admissions a day now, opening up the prospect of 4,000 a day at the peak. Higher than April 2020's peak.
Making up numbers to suit his purposes.
Perhaps he could explain why Blackburn and Bolton didn't have hospital admissions anywhere near their peak.
But he couldn't because that would require explaining real world numbers rather than theoretical exponentials to infinity.
Yep - meaningless use of numbers. How does he know what the peak is? What basis is there for saying that a previous peak has any relevance to future projections. And also need to consider the distinction between admissions and numbers in hospital.
Now I’m back to Unionist Troll. Sorry, last one re Calista I promise but it was posted using an iPhone, not standard operating procedure for a Russian Bot Farm
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
I'll cheekily repost this as it was lost in injury time of the last thread. With regard to half the population still wanting to be restricted:
Have we become so risk-averse that we want to reduce life to cowering reeks?* All of life contains risk. When you step out of the shower or walk down the stairs or when you cross the road or eat a peanut. Unless we want to void the meaning of life in a dystopian vacuum pack then we have to embrace some risks.
Is either group competent to assess the risks to which they expose themselves and, crucially, others? This is not bungee jumping. It might be Typhoid Mary.
I'm sure this isn't you but the sneering, supercilious, attitude that someone knows better than me about how I should be free, or even if I should be, is the kind of thing that sends a shudder down my spine.
It's the worst kind of dystopian brave new world. Something straight out of A Handmaiden's Tale.
It's Starmerism. A man so convinced in the fundamental Goodness of Government, at least the government led by him, that his only solution to every problem is more taxes, more spending, more rules, more regulations, more nannying, less freedom ...
And of course rather too many in today's Conservative Party aren't much better. But that's the main reason why Starmer has found it so difficult to oppose the bossiest, most bullying government in my lifetime.
The Conservative Party solution to every problem is more taxes, more spending, more rules, more regulations, more nannying and less freedom. It’s what the (English) people voted for.
So with first doses down to the stragglers which should the government chose:
1) Open up vaccination to 16-17s ? 2) Reduce the second dose delay ? 3) Begin booster shots for six months after full vaccination ?
I have pointed this out before but 45.5m have received their first vaccine which is pretty much 87%. But that leaves nearly 7m adults who have not yet had 1 vaccine. That's not stragglers, that's a lot of people. At the current rate it would take roughly another 3 months to vaccinate them. Surely finding and persuading these people has to be our first priority?
There's no reason why you cannot continue to try to persuade them.
But its not like pretty much every effort hasn't already been made.
So we're well into the law of diminishing returns with them.
And 87% is certainly higher than would have been predicted, it might even scrape up to 90% by the end of August.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Yes. Accuse the government of not caring enough about or knowing enough about the other nations, of focusing too much on England intentionally or otherwise, with detrimental effect on the UK Union, but that is not the same thing as being avowedly English nationalist, as its actions would be far, far different.
It's an enduring accusation, but it just is not true.
Is it unintentionally English nationalist in effect? A different accusation entirely.
you can try and hide it any way you want or try and dress it up but it does not change the facts, totally and completely English nationalist I am afraid.
Why would I have any desire to hide or dress anything up? I am very worried that the outcome from this government contributes to an outcome English nationalists would like.
But you are right about facts, and the simple fact is that English nationalists wouldn't seek to hold the UK together. As actual supporters of English nationalism on here have said before, they think England (and indeed the other nations) would be better off if that was not the case.
They might well be doing a poor job of trying to hold the UK together, but they are attempting it. No amount of hating the government or pointing to the effect of what it is doing changes the facts that it is not intending to have that outcome.
I don't see how that is a very contestable position - why would English nationalists even talk up the UK Union as the government frequently does? They wouldn't. Would you say they are lying? Why would they do that when the accusation is they, and supporters, are out and out English nationalists?
The facts show they are not English nationalists, but may be crap. Your position is just irrational, that even though they get their support from English nationalist and want English nationalist things, they are apparently coy about stating they are English nationlists.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
No he's 100% right.
It's not uniquely British but it is a cultural difference between Britain and America. Americans don't do that.
He didn't mention any other countries other than Britain and America so saying we're British at the end is right. We're British not American.
Same could be said about other nations. Eg Aussies are more like us than the Americans on this too (which isn't always the case on other issue) so an Aussie Casino on aussiePB.com could write something similar saying at the end "Why? Because we won't let them - we're Australians" and it would be equally correct too.
Similar for any other nation in Europe or anywhere else that you think the same about.
People really don't have much to worry about if they care about people they've never met kicking a ball around.
It's not a war, it's just a silly and mostly rather boring game.
Ah, we're at the 'pretend its surprising that people get excited at sporting contests despite humans doing so for thousands of years' stage.
Mr Fishing could do worse than watch Russel Brand’s latest missive about all this. Yes it’s daft and silly to care about something that doesn’t matter. But it unleashes powerful emotions and hormones and a sense of collective self.
Not among everybody, it doesn't. Lots of people are totally immune to its charms.
But yes, if people must obsess over something stupid to get a sense of colletive self or whatever tenth rate pop psychology is fashionable today it's better this than burning witches or Jews or whatever.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
The UK comes with an historical legacy and significant soft power. No English nationalist politician would voluntarily give that up.
I disagree with that. It is wrong to assume nationalists are all obsessed with power projection. Many are much more insular.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
No he's 100% right.
It's not uniquely British but it is a cultural difference between Britain and America. Americans don't do that.
He didn't mention any other countries other than Britain and America so saying we're British at the end is right. We're British not American.
Same could be said about other nations. Eg Aussies are more like us than the Americans on this too (which isn't always the case on other issue) so an Aussie Casino on aussiePB.com could write something similar saying at the end "Why? Because we won't let them - we're Australians" and it would be equally correct too.
Similar for any other nation in Europe or anywhere else that you think the same about.
This "progressive" players who are role models....there are certainly some that could fit that narrative, but Foden, Maguire, Stones, Walker, Pickford off the top of my head....all do a great job of living up to the caricature of a footballer...and the fan favourite by miles.... Jack Grealish.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
No he's 100% right.
It's not uniquely British but it is a cultural difference between Britain and America. Americans don't do that.
He didn't mention any other countries other than Britain and America so saying we're British at the end is right. We're British not American.
Same could be said about other nations. Eg Aussies are more like us than the Americans on this too (which isn't always the case on other issue) so an Aussie Casino on aussiePB.com could write something similar saying at the end "Why? Because we won't let them - we're Australians" and it would be equally correct too.
Similar for any other nation in Europe or anywhere else that you think the same about.
My American wife strongly disagrees.
Good for her.
What does she disagree with? That we're British not American? Or that there's a difference between Britons and Americans?
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
I have had a very bad attack of asthma this last week. One of the consequences has been appalling coughing fits. I have not been out much in consequence. But when I have gone out I have not worn a mask because (a) I am exempt but (b) mainly because it is really quite horrible to wear when one is already struggling to breathe.
You are in danger of making an assumption about a person without knowing why they are coughing. And, no, I am not wearing a lanyard about me. I'm not some sort of leper to be marked.
People should not travel if they are ill. They should use handkerchiefs if they sneeze or cough. They would be wise to avoid places where there are likely to be highly vulnerable people. But we cannot live in hermetically sealed bubbles. And if you'd berated me I'd have used what breath I had to give you a piece of my mind!
Presumably you can sympathise with the discomfort that fellow travellers unaware of the cause of your coughing would feel? How would they distinguish you from a selfish spreader of Covid or flu? No easy answers as we readjust manners and behaviour in public spaces.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
No he's 100% right.
It's not uniquely British but it is a cultural difference between Britain and America. Americans don't do that.
He didn't mention any other countries other than Britain and America so saying we're British at the end is right. We're British not American.
Same could be said about other nations. Eg Aussies are more like us than the Americans on this too (which isn't always the case on other issue) so an Aussie Casino on aussiePB.com could write something similar saying at the end "Why? Because we won't let them - we're Australians" and it would be equally correct too.
Similar for any other nation in Europe or anywhere else that you think the same about.
My American wife strongly disagrees.
Good for her.
What does she disagree with? That we're British not American? Or that there's a difference between Britons and Americans?
Rest of the world is irrelevant to the point.
You are making the mistake that the 0.5% of the US population that is addicted to having a barney on social media are a good representation of the character (if it exists) of a nation. Spend some time living in both countries, there are differences of course, but there are good fair people everywhere.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
I don't know if they are media savvy, more like the people advising them.
Remember only a few months ago we had Foden and Greenwood breaking covid rules in Iceland to shag some local ladies behind the backs of their partners, one of which was pregnant. Kyle Walker repeatedly ignored covid restrictions, even when his manager's mother had just died of covid. Grealish, banned for drink driving, repeated partying during lockdown....Trippier, well known for some of his wild antics and massively unprofessional like chain smoking...Stones cheated on the mother of his young child.... Maguire, criminal conviction for fighting in Greece.....
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
I wonder if the hatred for the English football team has grown in proportion to the failures of the Scottish football team.
Between 1974 and 1982 Scotland were a match for England, their squads filled with great players:
The Liverpool, Leeds, Nottm Forest, Ipswich teams which dominated Europe had numerous Scottish players while even those players who stayed in Scotland included top stars such as Danny McGrain and Willie Miller.
Whereas now Scottish footballers struggle to be household names in their own household.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
I agree with the comment about fairplay. I'm sure that Kim Leadbeater's win was made more likely by her being bullied by Galloways mob on the election trail.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
I wonder if the hatred for the English football team has grown in proportion to the failures of the Scottish football team.
Between 1974 and 1982 Scotland were a match for England, their squads filled with great players:
The Liverpool, Leeds, Nottm Forest, Ipswich teams which dominated Europe had numerous Scottish players while even those players who stayed in Scotland included top stars such as Danny McGrain and Willie Miller.
Whereas now Scottish footballers struggle to be household names in their own household.
And yet in 2021, they were literally a match for England.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
I don't know if they are media savvy, more like the people advising them.
Remember only a few months ago we had Foden and Greenwood breaking covid rules in Iceland to shag some local ladies behind the backs of their partners, one of which was pregnant. Kyle Walker repeatedly ignored covid restrictions, even when his manager's mother had just died of covid. Grealish, banned for drink driving, repeated partying during lockdown....Trippier, well known for some of his wild antics and massively unprofessional like chain smoking...Stones cheated on the mother of his young child.... Maguire, criminal conviction for fighting in Greece.....
My understanding is that Maguire's conviction is of no legal standing pending the resolution of his appeal which is unlikely to be heard this year. But yes, the image produced by the FA is a highly polished and selective one.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
What really worries me is that essentialist national stereotyping is creeping in through the back door of political identity. Rochdale Pioneers’ rant this morning and Stuart Dickson’s comments about the English are now countered by this sort of equally offensive shite about the Scots. It is, apparently, impossible to square progressive politics with an English or British identity, conversely perpetrators of any bad behaviour north of the border are “not true Scotsmen” (Rangers fans are, apparently, never ever Scottish).
It’s insane, as insane as the US Dems who said Obama would usher in a new USA, then promised they would move to Canada when Trump won, didn’t, and now talk down to us in endless think pieces in the NYT. Or those who this week pretend Italy is some haven of liberal politics, or those who forget that two of the most illiberal, undemocratic, countries in Europe are in the EU, all just to score a point about how the EU is just intrinsically “nicer”. It’s countered by this sort of b***ocks about Scotland having a “horror of England”. Everyone should have a long hard think about the ultimate logic of their arguments that some countries are beyond saving and that a certain brand of politics is hardwired into their identity. Saying that countries are baked into an immutable ideology is ultimately an argument against democracy.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
I wonder if the hatred for the English football team has grown in proportion to the failures of the Scottish football team.
Between 1974 and 1982 Scotland were a match for England, their squads filled with great players:
The Liverpool, Leeds, Nottm Forest, Ipswich teams which dominated Europe had numerous Scottish players while even those players who stayed in Scotland included top stars such as Danny McGrain and Willie Miller.
Whereas now Scottish footballers struggle to be household names in their own household.
Can I just say, given the late 70s/early 80s Ipswich side has come up, RIP Paul Mariner. You were my favourite player of our golden era.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
I wonder if the hatred for the English football team has grown in proportion to the failures of the Scottish football team.
Between 1974 and 1982 Scotland were a match for England, their squads filled with great players:
The Liverpool, Leeds, Nottm Forest, Ipswich teams which dominated Europe had numerous Scottish players while even those players who stayed in Scotland included top stars such as Danny McGrain and Willie Miller.
Whereas now Scottish footballers struggle to be household names in their own household.
And yet in 2021, they were literally a match for England.
Well one side went out in the group stage and the other is in the final.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
What really worries me is that essentialist national stereotyping is creeping in through the back door of political identity. Rochdale Pioneers’ rant this morning and Stuart Dickson’s comments about the English are now countered by this sort of equally offensive shite about the Scots. It is, apparently, impossible to square progressive politics with an English or British identity, conversely perpetrators of any bad behaviour north of the border are “not true Scotsmen” (Rangers fans are, apparently, never ever Scottish).
It’s insane, as insane as the US Dems who said Obama would usher in a new USA, then promised they would move to Canada when Trump won, didn’t, and now talk down to us in endless think pieces in the NYT. Or those who this week pretend Italy is some haven of liberal politics, or those who forget that two of the most illiberal, undemocratic, countries in Europe are in the EU, all just to score a point about how the EU is just intrinsically “nicer”. It’s countered by this sort of b***ocks about Scotland having a “horror of England”. Everyone should have a long hard think about the ultimate logic of their arguments that some countries are beyond saving and that a certain brand of politics is hardwired into their identity. Saying that countries are baked into an immutable ideology is ultimately an argument against democracy.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
I don't know if they are media savvy, more like the people advising them.
Remember only a few months ago we had Foden and Greenwood breaking covid rules in Iceland to shag some local ladies behind the backs of their partners, one of which was pregnant. Kyle Walker repeatedly ignored covid restrictions, even when his manager's mother had just died of covid. Grealish, banned for drink driving, repeated partying during lockdown....Trippier, well known for some of his wild antics and massively unprofessional like chain smoking...Stones cheated on the mother of his young child.... Maguire, criminal conviction for fighting in Greece.....
My understanding is that Maguire's conviction is of no legal standing pending the resolution of his appeal which is unlikely to be heard this year. But yes, the image produced by the FA is a highly polished and selective one.
There is some serious glossing over things. Raheem Sterling has consistently been a very naughty boy. Maybe he is a very upstanding gentleman now, but he certainly wasn't in the past.
Are they as a group massively different from a big group of 20 year old, no, but this putting the whole squad on some pedestal of socially conscious progressive lot is just media spin. Kane and Rashford do appear to be genuinely very upstanding interested in things beyond football, Kane in particular just seems like a nice rather boring family man. Henderson seems to be respected. But there is the other extremes as well.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
What really worries me is that essentialist national stereotyping is creeping in through the back door of political identity. Rochdale Pioneers’ rant this morning and Stuart Dickson’s comments about the English are now countered by this sort of equally offensive shite about the Scots. It is, apparently, impossible to square progressive politics with an English or British identity, conversely perpetrators of any bad behaviour north of the border are “not true Scotsmen” (Rangers fans are, apparently, never ever Scottish).
It’s insane, as insane as the US Dems who said Obama would usher in a new USA, then promised they would move to Canada when Trump won, didn’t, and now talk down to us in endless think pieces in the NYT. Or those who this week pretend Italy is some haven of liberal politics, or those who forget that two of the most illiberal, undemocratic, countries in Europe are in the EU, all just to score a point about how the EU is just intrinsically “nicer”. It’s countered by this sort of b***ocks about Scotland having a “horror of England”. Everyone should have a long hard think about the ultimate logic of their arguments that some countries are beyond saving and that a certain brand of politics is hardwired into their identity. Saying that countries are baked into an immutable ideology is ultimately an argument against democracy.
I could not agree more. Well said.
I was trolling!
Tho I do think “horror” is the exact word to describe the attitudes of *some* Scots towards England and Englishness, especially English football
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
‘Despise’ isn’t the right word. You despise something that you feel is lesser, and lower
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
What really worries me is that essentialist national stereotyping is creeping in through the back door of political identity. Rochdale Pioneers’ rant this morning and Stuart Dickson’s comments about the English are now countered by this sort of equally offensive shite about the Scots. It is, apparently, impossible to square progressive politics with an English or British identity, conversely perpetrators of any bad behaviour north of the border are “not true Scotsmen” (Rangers fans are, apparently, never ever Scottish).
It’s insane, as insane as the US Dems who said Obama would usher in a new USA, then promised they would move to Canada when Trump won, didn’t, and now talk down to us in endless think pieces in the NYT. Or those who this week pretend Italy is some haven of liberal politics, or those who forget that two of the most illiberal, undemocratic, countries in Europe are in the EU, all just to score a point about how the EU is just intrinsically “nicer”. It’s countered by this sort of b***ocks about Scotland having a “horror of England”. Everyone should have a long hard think about the ultimate logic of their arguments that some countries are beyond saving and that a certain brand of politics is hardwired into their identity. Saying that countries are baked into an immutable ideology is ultimately an argument against democracy.
I could not agree more. Well said.
Thanks. It’s something that really really bugs me.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
I don't know if they are media savvy, more like the people advising them.
Remember only a few months ago we had Foden and Greenwood breaking covid rules in Iceland to shag some local ladies behind the backs of their partners, one of which was pregnant. Kyle Walker repeatedly ignored covid restrictions, even when his manager's mother had just died of covid. Grealish, banned for drink driving, repeated partying during lockdown....Trippier, well known for some of his wild antics and massively unprofessional like chain smoking...Stones cheated on the mother of his young child.... Maguire, criminal conviction for fighting in Greece.....
Apart from disputed Greek fisticuffs, which of that list disqualifies any England player from a seat in the Cabinet?
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
I have had a very bad attack of asthma this last week. One of the consequences has been appalling coughing fits. I have not been out much in consequence. But when I have gone out I have not worn a mask because (a) I am exempt but (b) mainly because it is really quite horrible to wear when one is already struggling to breathe.
You are in danger of making an assumption about a person without knowing why they are coughing. And, no, I am not wearing a lanyard about me. I'm not some sort of leper to be marked.
People should not travel if they are ill. They should use handkerchiefs if they sneeze or cough. They would be wise to avoid places where there are likely to be highly vulnerable people. But we cannot live in hermetically sealed bubbles. And if you'd berated me I'd have used what breath I had to give you a piece of my mind!
Presumably you can sympathise with the discomfort that fellow travellers unaware of the cause of your coughing would feel? How would they distinguish you from a selfish spreader of Covid or flu? No easy answers as we readjust manners and behaviour in public spaces.
Of course I do. Which is why I have avoided going to public places, out of concern for myself and as a courtesy to others. That is why I think that one should carry a hankie as a matter of course.
I also always have a mask with me so that if someone really insists and I can bear it or there is someone even more vulnerable I can put it on.
We need to live with each other with a bit of courtesy. We do not need people berating strangers in an aggressive manner. When you are having an asthma attack you can get very anxious and stressed. Having a stranger shout at you is, well, not optimal and is likely to make the situation worse.
The last time I had a really serious asthma attack in NY I was in our offices and colleagues, trying to do their best, all crowded round with advice, glasses of water etc not realising that it was making my stress very much worse. I ended up in hospital because it got so bad.
The finger-wagging tendency in the British character is not the way we are going to find a happy modus vivendi for the future.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
I don't know if they are media savvy, more like the people advising them.
Remember only a few months ago we had Foden and Greenwood breaking covid rules in Iceland to shag some local ladies behind the backs of their partners, one of which was pregnant. Kyle Walker repeatedly ignored covid restrictions, even when his manager's mother had just died of covid. Grealish, banned for drink driving, repeated partying during lockdown....Trippier, well known for some of his wild antics and massively unprofessional like chain smoking...Stones cheated on the mother of his young child.... Maguire, criminal conviction for fighting in Greece.....
Apart from disputed Greek fisticuffs, which of that list disqualifies any England player from a seat in the Cabinet?
I am not sure anybody is claiming the current cabinet is a bastion of morality...However, if you listen to Gary Neville, the government are utter scum while the England team are absolute angels.
I actually ended up on holiday with Gareth Southgate a number of years ago. He appeared as reported to be a very nice family man. It was a small resort, and we played most days with his kids in the pool, chatted a bit as Mrs U has some people they know in common. All very nice.
Then a couple of other professional footballers turned up to the small resort, god they were massive bellends.
Everyone should have a long hard think about the ultimate logic of their arguments that some countries are beyond saving and that a certain brand of politics is hardwired into their identity. Saying that countries are baked into an immutable ideology is ultimately an argument against democracy.
But would you not agree that geography has a big impact on the outlook of a political community? Saying that nations are influenced by their geopolitical situation and their relationships with their neighbours is not an argument against democracy.
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
I have had a very bad attack of asthma this last week. One of the consequences has been appalling coughing fits. I have not been out much in consequence. But when I have gone out I have not worn a mask because (a) I am exempt but (b) mainly because it is really quite horrible to wear when one is already struggling to breathe.
You are in danger of making an assumption about a person without knowing why they are coughing. And, no, I am not wearing a lanyard about me. I'm not some sort of leper to be marked.
People should not travel if they are ill. They should use handkerchiefs if they sneeze or cough. They would be wise to avoid places where there are likely to be highly vulnerable people. But we cannot live in hermetically sealed bubbles. And if you'd berated me I'd have used what breath I had to give you a piece of my mind!
Presumably you can sympathise with the discomfort that fellow travellers unaware of the cause of your coughing would feel? How would they distinguish you from a selfish spreader of Covid or flu? No easy answers as we readjust manners and behaviour in public spaces.
Of course I do. Which is why I have avoided going to public places, out of concern for myself and as a courtesy to others. That is why I think that one should carry a hankie as a matter of course.
I also always have a mask with me so that if someone really insists and I can bear it or there is someone even more vulnerable I can put it on.
We need to live with each other with a bit of courtesy. We do not need people berating strangers in an aggressive manner. When you are having an asthma attack you can get very anxious and stressed. Having a stranger shout at you is, well, not optimal and is likely to make the situation worse.
The last time I had a really serious asthma attack in NY I was in our offices and colleagues, trying to do their best, all crowded round with advice, glasses of water etc not realising that it was making my stress very much worse. I ended up in hospital because it got so bad.
The finger-wagging tendency in the British character is not the way we are going to find a happy modus vivendi for the future.
I agree with what you have written and less censoriousness would also be a good thing online. I do hope that mask wearing on crowded public transport becomes the norm without any aggressive criticism in either direction. The London Tube is optimal for spreading disease.
Everyone should have a long hard think about the ultimate logic of their arguments that some countries are beyond saving and that a certain brand of politics is hardwired into their identity. Saying that countries are baked into an immutable ideology is ultimately an argument against democracy.
But would you not agree that geography has a big impact on the outlook of a political community? Saying that nations are influenced by their geopolitical situation and their relationships with their neighbours is not an argument against democracy.
I don’t disagree with that. History and geography play a big part and make it harder for one side or the other. But the arguments are going beyond that.
This "progressive" players who are role models....there are certainly some that could fit that narrative, but Foden, Maguire, Stones, Walker, Pickford off the top of my head....all do a great job of living up to the caricature of a footballer...and the fan favourite by miles.... Jack Grealish.
Makes you wonder why they still all take the knee.
Maybe they just do it because they genuinely dislike injustice?
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
I have had a very bad attack of asthma this last week. One of the consequences has been appalling coughing fits. I have not been out much in consequence. But when I have gone out I have not worn a mask because (a) I am exempt but (b) mainly because it is really quite horrible to wear when one is already struggling to breathe.
You are in danger of making an assumption about a person without knowing why they are coughing. And, no, I am not wearing a lanyard about me. I'm not some sort of leper to be marked.
People should not travel if they are ill. They should use handkerchiefs if they sneeze or cough. They would be wise to avoid places where there are likely to be highly vulnerable people. But we cannot live in hermetically sealed bubbles. And if you'd berated me I'd have used what breath I had to give you a piece of my mind!
Presumably you can sympathise with the discomfort that fellow travellers unaware of the cause of your coughing would feel? How would they distinguish you from a selfish spreader of Covid or flu? No easy answers as we readjust manners and behaviour in public spaces.
So someone who has got a lung condition that prevents them from wearing a mask but also coughs a lot is just shit out of luck in the new COVID world?
If people want to protect themselves they should invest in FFP3 masks.
This "progressive" players who are role models....there are certainly some that could fit that narrative, but Foden, Maguire, Stones, Walker, Pickford off the top of my head....all do a great job of living up to the caricature of a footballer...and the fan favourite by miles.... Jack Grealish.
Makes you wonder why they still all take the knee.
Maybe they just do it because they genuinely dislike injustice?
Well Griezmann and Dembele take the knee....and they aren't exactly "progressives" or against racial injustice....they are perpetrators of it. Unless overt racism against Asians doesn't count?
Foden loss is huge. When he came on in the last game, he showed how good he is. He is better than Grealish with and without the ball.
Seems like a sensible move to me.
One big negative of this approach. With Saka and Sterling, that's lots of pace from either side, against a slow and aging Italian defence. Mount doesn't provide that kind of threat. I don't think we can pass just pass our way through the Italian's very experienced central defenders.
I think what we get if England's approach goes to plan is a very very tight game with few chances.
Indeed, I suspect we could all be wearing masks, on crowded public transport, for the rest of our lives
No we won't. I don't and won't. So you do what you feel you need to in your fear-laden life but I'm living free, ta.
You only get one of these things. Enjoy it.
I'm always polite but I'll make an exception if I see someone coughing and not wearing a mask on a crowded train/Tube. He's a selfish git and I'll tell him so. Doubt if I'll be alone and I can foresee some loud arguments about this. It's a pity that the Government has wimped out with their "advice", which lets the selfish infect everyone else. Either they think it's a significant health risk, in which case they should maintain the legislation, or they don't, in which case they shouldn't be bothering with the advice.
I have had a very bad attack of asthma this last week. One of the consequences has been appalling coughing fits. I have not been out much in consequence. But when I have gone out I have not worn a mask because (a) I am exempt but (b) mainly because it is really quite horrible to wear when one is already struggling to breathe.
You are in danger of making an assumption about a person without knowing why they are coughing. And, no, I am not wearing a lanyard about me. I'm not some sort of leper to be marked.
People should not travel if they are ill. They should use handkerchiefs if they sneeze or cough. They would be wise to avoid places where there are likely to be highly vulnerable people. But we cannot live in hermetically sealed bubbles. And if you'd berated me I'd have used what breath I had to give you a piece of my mind!
Presumably you can sympathise with the discomfort that fellow travellers unaware of the cause of your coughing would feel? How would they distinguish you from a selfish spreader of Covid or flu? No easy answers as we readjust manners and behaviour in public spaces.
So someone who has got a lung condition that prevents them from wearing a mask but also coughs a lot is just shit out of luck in the new COVID world?
If people want to protect themselves they should invest in FFP3 masks.
Or cycle free could wear a lanyard showing exemption
This isn’t forever. But while we are in the grip of a global pandemic of a respiratory virus, that could yet kill millions more, I don’t see it as a huge imposition
The greater restriction by far is a return to lockdown. We must avoid that
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
Squinting at that screen grab, there appears to be a direct quote from Southgate:
"People have tried to invade us and we've had the courage to hold that back."
The loony left interpretation of British (or, rather, English history, because they regard the other elements of the UK as oppressed colonies and cheerlead for their nationalisms,) is the mirror image of the far right's. They want to erase anything positive that we ever did and just drone on endlessly about racism and the crimes of empire; the far right wants to do gaudy oompah and sweep all the problems under the carpet.
If anyone says something positive about England then of course they are going to moan about it. They don't think there's anything positive that can be legitimately said.
Foden loss is huge. When he came on in the last game, he showed how good he is. He is better than Grealish with and without the ball.
Seems like a sensible move to me.
One big negative of this approach. With Saka and Sterling, that's lots of pace from either side, against a slow and aging Italian defence. Mount doesn't provide that kind of threat. I don't think we can pass just pass our way through the Italian's very experienced central defenders.
I think what we get if England's approach goes to plan is a very very tight game with few chances.
Italy are susceptible to the kind of crosses that Trippier and Shaw can provide.
Also substitutes will play a big part - an injection of pace for the final 25 minutes could be vital.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
Foden loss is huge. When he came on in the last game, he showed how good he is. He is better than Grealish with and without the ball.
Seems like a sensible move to me.
One big negative of this approach. With Saka and Sterling, that's lots of pace from either side, against a slow and aging Italian defence. Mount doesn't provide that kind of threat. I don't think we can pass just pass our way through the Italian's very experienced central defenders.
I think what we get if England's approach goes to plan is a very very tight game with few chances.
Italy are susceptible to the kind of crosses that Trippier and Shaw can provide.
Also substitutes will play a big part - an injection of pace for the final 25 minutes could be vital..
I think this is where Foden is a big miss. He has pace, creativity, ability to score, while also being able to keep the ball better than say a Grealish.
Grealish offers creativity, but will lose the ball a fair amount of times, Sancho has the pace and trickery, but isn't so good at the creativity in very tight spaces, he needs space to run. Saka has the pace and can also do a defensive job, but again I don't think he has that magic x-factor to unlock a well drilled experienced set defence the way Foden does.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
I agree that most of the rest of the world would certainly identify pomposity and arrogance as a definite British Thing.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
Foden loss is huge. When he came on in the last game, he showed how good he is. He is better than Grealish with and without the ball.
Seems like a sensible move to me.
One big negative of this approach. With Saka and Sterling, that's lots of pace from either side, against a slow and aging Italian defence. Mount doesn't provide that kind of threat. I don't think we can pass just pass our way through the Italian's very experienced central defenders.
I think what we get if England's approach goes to plan is a very very tight game with few chances.
Italy are susceptible to the kind of crosses that Trippier and Shaw can provide.
Also substitutes will play a big part - an injection of pace for the final 25 minutes could be vital..
I think this is where Foden is a big miss. He has pace, creativity, ability to score, while also being able to keep the ball better than say a Grealish.
Yet, big loss. Tho the Italians have an even bigger deficit, of course
Comments
From time to time I could live with
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
There would also be no Tory MPs in Scotland and Wales as there are now
Perhaps he could explain why Blackburn and Bolton didn't have hospital admissions anywhere near their peak.
But he couldn't because that would require explaining real world numbers rather than theoretical exponentials to infinity.
Here's a graph:
Russ Garrett
@russss
·
1h
Still haven't got round to putting this on the website, but here are the latest hospitalisation numbers plotted in relation to the models presented at SAGE 92 (June 9th).
https://twitter.com/russss/status/1414159871600123906
Covid....covid... coooovid....covid....covid...covid...cooooovid...covid.
On the second point, that's interesting. How odd. But not illegal? After discovering that electoral law was fiddled in Sxcotland to allow the Labour Party to pretend to be a separate 'Scottish Labour Party' despite being a completely unified accounting unit, I have learnt to check the Electoral Commission bumf. In this case this seems to show that Mr Gove or at least his agent is legally permitted to claim that he is belonging to something called the 'Conservative Party' - there is a whole menu of things to choose from:
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP52
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
It's an enduring accusation, but it just is not true.
Is it unintentionally English nationalist in effect? A different accusation entirely.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
1) Open up vaccination to 16-17s ?
2) Reduce the second dose delay ?
3) Begin booster shots for six months after full vaccination ?
Massively overrated film.
Start the second jabs in the autumn, using a different vaccine than their original for the vulnerable groups 1-9.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
Your comment lets you down.
Ten years ? Twenty years ? Thirty years ?
You are in danger of making an assumption about a person without knowing why they are coughing. And, no, I am not wearing a lanyard about me. I'm not some sort of leper to be marked.
People should not travel if they are ill. They should use handkerchiefs if they sneeze or cough. They would be wise to avoid places where there are likely to be highly vulnerable people. But we cannot live in hermetically sealed bubbles. And if you'd berated me I'd have used what breath I had to give you a piece of my mind!
England is obviously a better football team than Scotland. Just as England is clearly a great nation, unlike Scotland
Scotland has an inferiority complex re England (likewise Wales, Ireland, and many others). The right word might be ‘horror’ - repugnance and fear combined. Scotland has a horror of England, and is horrified by the possibility England could win
But its not like pretty much every effort hasn't already been made.
So we're well into the law of diminishing returns with them.
And 87% is certainly higher than would have been predicted, it might even scrape up to 90% by the end of August.
But you are right about facts, and the simple fact is that English nationalists wouldn't seek to hold the UK together. As actual supporters of English nationalism on here have said before, they think England (and indeed the other nations) would be better off if that was not the case.
They might well be doing a poor job of trying to hold the UK together, but they are attempting it. No amount of hating the government or pointing to the effect of what it is doing changes the facts that it is not intending to have that outcome.
I don't see how that is a very contestable position - why would English nationalists even talk up the UK Union as the government frequently does? They wouldn't. Would you say they are lying? Why would they do that when the accusation is they, and supporters, are out and out English nationalists?
The facts show they are not English nationalists, but may be crap. Your position is just irrational, that even though they get their support from English nationalist and want English nationalist things, they are apparently coy about stating they are English nationlists.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
It's not uniquely British but it is a cultural difference between Britain and America. Americans don't do that.
He didn't mention any other countries other than Britain and America so saying we're British at the end is right. We're British not American.
Same could be said about other nations. Eg Aussies are more like us than the Americans on this too (which isn't always the case on other issue) so an Aussie Casino on aussiePB.com could write something similar saying at the end "Why? Because we won't let them - we're Australians" and it would be equally correct too.
Similar for any other nation in Europe or anywhere else that you think the same about.
But yes, if people must obsess over something stupid to get a sense of colletive self or whatever tenth rate pop psychology is fashionable today it's better this than burning witches or Jews or whatever.
What does she disagree with? That we're British not American? Or that there's a difference between Britons and Americans?
Rest of the world is irrelevant to the point.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
Remember only a few months ago we had Foden and Greenwood breaking covid rules in Iceland to shag some local ladies behind the backs of their partners, one of which was pregnant. Kyle Walker repeatedly ignored covid restrictions, even when his manager's mother had just died of covid. Grealish, banned for drink driving, repeated partying during lockdown....Trippier, well known for some of his wild antics and massively unprofessional like chain smoking...Stones cheated on the mother of his young child.... Maguire, criminal conviction for fighting in Greece.....
Between 1974 and 1982 Scotland were a match for England, their squads filled with great players:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Scotland
The Liverpool, Leeds, Nottm Forest, Ipswich teams which dominated Europe had numerous Scottish players while even those players who stayed in Scotland included top stars such as Danny McGrain and Willie Miller.
Whereas now Scottish footballers struggle to be household names in their own household.
It’s insane, as insane as the US Dems who said Obama would usher in a new USA, then promised they would move to Canada when Trump won, didn’t, and now talk down to us in endless think pieces in the NYT. Or those who this week pretend Italy is some haven of liberal politics, or those who forget that two of the most illiberal, undemocratic, countries in Europe are in the EU, all just to score a point about how the EU is just intrinsically “nicer”. It’s countered by this sort of b***ocks about Scotland having a “horror of England”. Everyone should have a long hard think about the ultimate logic of their arguments that some countries are beyond saving and that a certain brand of politics is hardwired into their identity. Saying that countries are baked into an immutable ideology is ultimately an argument against democracy.
That tends to be how the sane judge a tournament.
There is some serious glossing over things. Raheem Sterling has consistently been a very naughty boy. Maybe he is a very upstanding gentleman now, but he certainly wasn't in the past.
Are they as a group massively different from a big group of 20 year old, no, but this putting the whole squad on some pedestal of socially conscious progressive lot is just media spin. Kane and Rashford do appear to be genuinely very upstanding interested in things beyond football, Kane in particular just seems like a nice rather boring family man. Henderson seems to be respected. But there is the other extremes as well.
Tho I do think “horror” is the exact word to describe the attitudes of *some* Scots towards England and Englishness, especially English football
I also always have a mask with me so that if someone really insists and I can bear it or there is someone even more vulnerable I can put it on.
We need to live with each other with a bit of courtesy. We do not need people berating strangers in an aggressive manner. When you are having an asthma attack you can get very anxious and stressed. Having a stranger shout at you is, well, not optimal and is likely to make the situation worse.
The last time I had a really serious asthma attack in NY I was in our offices and colleagues, trying to do their best, all crowded round with advice, glasses of water etc not realising that it was making my stress very much worse. I ended up in hospital because it got so bad.
The finger-wagging tendency in the British character is not the way we are going to find a happy modus vivendi for the future.
I actually ended up on holiday with Gareth Southgate a number of years ago. He appeared as reported to be a very nice family man. It was a small resort, and we played most days with his kids in the pool, chatted a bit as Mrs U has some people they know in common. All very nice.
Then a couple of other professional footballers turned up to the small resort, god they were massive bellends.
That's a swipe at the telegraph
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/15559864/england-team-italy-final-euro-2020/
Foden loss is huge. When he came on in the last game, he showed how good he is. He is better than Grealish with and without the ball.
Maybe they just do it because they genuinely dislike injustice?
If people want to protect themselves they should invest in FFP3 masks.
Probably means he's judged it right?
But read the many replies and there’s zillions of lefties attacking Southgate and asking ‘why did he say this’. Etc
I think what we get if England's approach goes to plan is a very very tight game with few chances.
This isn’t forever. But while we are in the grip of a global pandemic of a respiratory virus, that could yet kill millions more, I don’t see it as a huge imposition
The greater restriction by far is a return to lockdown. We must avoid that
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
Both were probably busiest I have seen outside of December since the pandemic began.
Neither had any empty shelves or visible stock shortages.
"People have tried to invade us and we've had the courage to hold that back."
The loony left interpretation of British (or, rather, English history, because they regard the other elements of the UK as oppressed colonies and cheerlead for their nationalisms,) is the mirror image of the far right's. They want to erase anything positive that we ever did and just drone on endlessly about racism and the crimes of empire; the far right wants to do gaudy oompah and sweep all the problems under the carpet.
If anyone says something positive about England then of course they are going to moan about it. They don't think there's anything positive that can be legitimately said.
Also substitutes will play a big part - an injection of pace for the final 25 minutes could be vital.
We can definitely win this.
Grealish offers creativity, but will lose the ball a fair amount of times, Sancho has the pace and trickery, but isn't so good at the creativity in very tight spaces, he needs space to run. Saka has the pace and can also do a defensive job, but again I don't think he has that magic x-factor to unlock a well drilled experienced set defence the way Foden does.