The pro-independence campaign would win a referendum if one was called tomorrow, the co-leader of the Scottish Greens has claimed.
Lorna Slater said Nicola Sturgeon was accurate when the First Minister last week insisted "I've got time on my side" as polling suggested a majority of younger Scots voters back ending the Union.
Speaking to the Record ahead of her party's autumn conference this weekend, the Green MSP said: "If Unionists want to win and have a chance of stopping Scottish independence, they need to call a referendum very soon.
"The longer they leave it, they more chance we have of winning.
The pro-independence campaign would win a referendum if one was called tomorrow, the co-leader of the Scottish Greens has claimed.
Lorna Slater said Nicola Sturgeon was accurate when the First Minister last week insisted "I've got time on my side" as polling suggested a majority of younger Scots voters back ending the Union.
Speaking to the Record ahead of her party's autumn conference this weekend, the Green MSP said: "If Unionists want to win and have a chance of stopping Scottish independence, they need to call a referendum very soon.
"The longer they leave it, they more chance we have of winning.
Leaving aside the uncouthness of the point, I do wish when people made such a point that they added just a little bit more about why they presumably think that trend will not change, since they obviously know trends do change, else support would never have risen in the first place.
A response to the presumed denial of the ref by Johnson I think.
Yes, but what I mean is that on all sorts of issues people talk about how if its supported by the younger population then X is doomed or whatever - Tories being the obvious example. But we know that peoples' views can and do change, so if the argument is that young people back Sindy and that won't change (or at least not enough) I think it should include the last bit, not merely act like it is inevitable that current support levels for anything among the young remain static. If you don't add that little bit extra it looks silly.
The pro-independence campaign would win a referendum if one was called tomorrow, the co-leader of the Scottish Greens has claimed.
Lorna Slater said Nicola Sturgeon was accurate when the First Minister last week insisted "I've got time on my side" as polling suggested a majority of younger Scots voters back ending the Union.
Speaking to the Record ahead of her party's autumn conference this weekend, the Green MSP said: "If Unionists want to win and have a chance of stopping Scottish independence, they need to call a referendum very soon.
"The longer they leave it, they more chance we have of winning.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
He made the comment in 2002 and apologised for it in 2008:
For "Johnson is a racist" is this the best you've got?
Was 99% sure before clicking on that link that the apology would be a greasy little ‘I’m sorry if people were offended’. Lo and behold..
I’ve never won the lottery, penned a best-seller or seen a shooting star but I’ve watched Nicola Sturgeon apologise, and that gives me bragging rights over any millionaire novelist stargazer.
When the First Minister dropped the A-word, during her Covid statement at Holyrood, I initially thought I’d misheard her.
'Antagonise', maybe. 'Anathematise', possibly. 'Aggrandise', mostly likely. But apologise? Isn’t that something for mere mortals — and Westminster Tories? It’s not that ‘sorry’ isn’t in the First Minister’s vocabulary; it’s just that she seems to assume the Oxford English Dictionary includes the word with her opponents in mind.
No, the tennis experts, of whom I am not one, reckon Raducanu is the real deal. It might be that she let the celebrity circus go to her head.
It'd be a remarkable person to not let training take a little bit too much of a backseat after being catapulted to superstardom and becoming a multi millionaire a few weeks ago.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
He made the comment in 2002 and apologised for it in 2008:
For "Johnson is a racist" is this the best you've got?
Was 99% sure before clicking on that link that the apology would be a greasy little ‘I’m sorry if people were offended’. Lo and behold..
Carlotta's ability to change sides at the speed of a light switch and then offering the unqualified support Stalin would have given his right arm for is a wonder to behold.
It is quite ironic though that in 2018 face coverings were dehumanising and in 2020 compulsory. Covid was a very inclusive way of making orthodox Muslim women feel at home 🤣
As masks come off, I do notice how many men have grown rather unkempt grey beards*. One of many ways that sartorial standards have dropped since the years BC.
*not me. Being clean shaven is essential for a good FFP3 mask seal.
I think it's a little unfair to blame that on the poor sartor.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
Burkas should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy that encourages it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I’ve never won the lottery, penned a best-seller or seen a shooting star but I’ve watched Nicola Sturgeon apologise, and that gives me bragging rights over any millionaire novelist stargazer.
When the First Minister dropped the A-word, during her Covid statement at Holyrood, I initially thought I’d misheard her.
'Antagonise', maybe. 'Anathematise', possibly. 'Aggrandise', mostly likely. But apologise? Isn’t that something for mere mortals — and Westminster Tories? It’s not that ‘sorry’ isn’t in the First Minister’s vocabulary; it’s just that she seems to assume the Oxford English Dictionary includes the word with her opponents in mind.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
An interesting and accurate header. Boris seems utterly invincible, much more so than even Maggie or Tone at their zenith. There are two reasons:
1) Brexit. This was a massively divisive issue with Leavers in particular feeling persecuted and crushed. The out result was nothing short of a liberation for them. Boris is their Nelson Mandela - his pivotal role in bringing about their freedom and self-respect has forged a loyalty that can never be dimmed.
2) Boris. Most people don't particularly like politicians - they find them either slippery or odd. Boris however, when seen on TV, exudes a cheery normality. Earlier in the year two news clips on the same day demonstrated this point: in one we had Sir Keir being thrown out of a Bath pub amid an angry shouting match; in the other Boris was filmed, pint in hand, having a relaxed conflab with two members of the public on a pub-garden bench. If you're not interested in policy or performance, as most people aren't, Boris just seems a perfectly fine guy to have around.
i really like Quincel's tips - credible, not hedged by getout clauses and lucidly explained. This one looks totally convincing.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
I think interest rates have to rise, and will do so, albeit slowly at first. Currently we have negative real interest rates because of inflation. To prevent that gap from increasing they need to go up, even before we get to the need for a positive return on savings. The government can only claim that the spike is temporary for a few months, not forever.
The combination of sub inflationary wage growth (with real pay cuts across many sectors), rising energy and food bills, increased NI, and fiscal drag on income tax thresholds is going to be quite some financial squeeze, even before we get rising interest rates.
Given the amount of debt would a bit of inflation be the worst thing in the world? If we could get on with some house building we might even manage to keep property prices stable.
I am old enough to remember when inflation was considered part of the sickness of economic decline.
Broad sunlit uplands.
That was the bad kind of inflation overseen by red in tooth and claw Marxists like..er..Wilson, Callaghan and Healey. We’re gonna get the real good stuff now.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
I've mentioned above that there were two burqa clad ladies in outpatients when we visited the local hospital a few days ago. There was also a youth who for some reason took off his shirt and sat in the waiting area bare-chested. Several official-looking people came and spoke to him, and he put it back on.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
I've mentioned above that there were two burqa clad ladies in outpatients when we visited the local hospital a few days ago. There was also a youth who for some reason took off his shirt and sat in the waiting area bare-chested. Several official-looking people came and spoke to him, and he put it back on.
I'm not entirely certain what point you're trying to make.
The burqa and the misogynistic attitude surrounding it is abusive, just like Catholic Priests fiddling with kids.
Just because some abused kids can live healthy lives doesn't make it OK. Just beecause it is a religion that is behind it doesn't make it OK.
Whether its Catholic Priests abusing kids, or Muslim "conservatives" abusing women, we should stand up to it and say it isn't OK.
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
On topic, I think the heart of the situation is that Boris is bollocksing actual things up that affect the voters' lives in a practical way that would normally make a PM unelectable, but despite this he's polling 40% in mid-term.
If he continues to poll 40% he has nothing to worry about. But let's say for the sake of argument that he somehow loses the 40% later in the term and looks like he might lose the election. If you're the Tories, you can get rid of Boris, but things will still be bollocksed up. You can switch in a different guy but the best they have to run on is "we made a mess like you wouldn't believe, but at least we've got rid of the guy that did it, how about giving our new guy a go and see if they can do somewhat less badly". Whereas if you keep Boris, there's a decent hope that the 40% who were still enthusiastic two years in will eventually swing back come election time.
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
I've mentioned above that there were two burqa clad ladies in outpatients when we visited the local hospital a few days ago. There was also a youth who for some reason took off his shirt and sat in the waiting area bare-chested. Several official-looking people came and spoke to him, and he put it back on.
I'm not entirely certain what point you're trying to make.
The burqa and the misogynistic attitude surrounding it is abusive, just like Catholic Priests fiddling with kids.
Just because some abused kids can live healthy lives doesn't make it OK. Just beecause it is a religion that is behind it doesn't make it OK.
Whether its Catholic Priests abusing kids, or Muslim "conservatives" abusing women, we should stand up to it and say it isn't OK.
The burqa clad ladies were ignored. The 'inappropriately dressed' young white male wasn't.
No. They receive plenty of cash from the EU and their courts/system doesn't gold plate anything. Big differences to the UK/EU and a more satisfactory relationship.
i really like Quincel's tips - credible, not hedged by getout clauses and lucidly explained. This one looks totally convincing.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
I think interest rates have to rise, and will do so, albeit slowly at first. Currently we have negative real interest rates because of inflation. To prevent that gap from increasing they need to go up, even before we get to the need for a positive return on savings. The government can only claim that the spike is temporary for a few months, not forever.
The combination of sub inflationary wage growth (with real pay cuts across many sectors), rising energy and food bills, increased NI, and fiscal drag on income tax thresholds is going to be quite some financial squeeze, even before we get rising interest rates.
Given the amount of debt would a bit of inflation be the worst thing in the world? If we could get on with some house building we might even manage to keep property prices stable.
I am old enough to remember when inflation was considered part of the sickness of economic decline.
Broad sunlit uplands.
That was the bad kind of inflation overseen by red in tooth and claw Marxists like..er..Wilson, Callaghan and Healey. We’re gonna get the real good stuff now.
Nah if we have years of inflation being between 3-5% typically and sometimes upto 9% briefly then that would be the kind of inflation overseen by red in tooth and claw Marxists like ... er ... Churchill, Eden, Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Hume.
i really like Quincel's tips - credible, not hedged by getout clauses and lucidly explained. This one looks totally convincing.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
I think interest rates have to rise, and will do so, albeit slowly at first. Currently we have negative real interest rates because of inflation. To prevent that gap from increasing they need to go up, even before we get to the need for a positive return on savings. The government can only claim that the spike is temporary for a few months, not forever.
The combination of sub inflationary wage growth (with real pay cuts across many sectors), rising energy and food bills, increased NI, and fiscal drag on income tax thresholds is going to be quite some financial squeeze, even before we get rising interest rates.
Given the amount of debt would a bit of inflation be the worst thing in the world? If we could get on with some house building we might even manage to keep property prices stable.
I am old enough to remember when inflation was considered part of the sickness of economic decline.
Broad sunlit uplands.
That was the bad kind of inflation overseen by red in tooth and claw Marxists like..er..Wilson, Callaghan and Healey. We’re gonna get the real good stuff now.
Nah if we have years of inflation being between 3-5% typically and sometimes upto 9% briefly then that would be the kind of inflation overseen by red in tooth and claw Marxists like ... er ... Churchill, Eden, Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Hume.
Oh yes, and Wilson but his first time around.
My PB pedantry of the day: Douglas-Home is the spelling, though it is pronounced as you have it.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
No. They receive plenty of cash from the EU and their courts/system doesn't gold plate anything. Big differences to the UK/EU and a more satisfactory relationship.
Most importantly their population is strongly in favour of the EU, doesn’t Poland regularly top the EU favourability surveys? A populist government shitting over something popular with voters would be a novel approach.
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
No. They receive plenty of cash from the EU and their courts/system doesn't gold plate anything. Big differences to the UK/EU and a more satisfactory relationship.
Most importantly their population is strongly in favour of the EU, doesn’t Poland regularly top the EU favourability surveys? A populist government shitting over something popular with voters would be a novel approach.
You mean, like we see with the Tories and taxing the workers?
People who say this do not have an understanding of the different ways racism manifests. They are also the same people who think "but I have black friends" is a convincing argument.
It’s a pretty good demonstration that colour doesn’t hold back appointments. Not definitive, of course, because they could have been delayed or to less senior posts than they otherwise would have been (hard to see how) but it does mean that the accusers have to make a stronger case
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
Why should he dignify trite accusations? Give his accusers headlines?
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.
One of the interesting wild cards for Boris is Carrie. For the first time in Boris’s career the private and the political are intimately entangled. What happens depends significantly on that relationship. If Boris can’t keep little Boris locked up that will have a double impact. Also Carrie’s political ambitions may well shape what Boris decides to do.
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
I for one am completely flabbergasted by this unexpected take by Brian Wilson.
And I gey scunnered that the Scotsman should print yet another B. Wilson screed.
Charles must be fuming at all those unelected opiners trying to influence Scottish politics, though tbf that influence seems somewhat teensy weensy.
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
No. They receive plenty of cash from the EU and their courts/system doesn't gold plate anything. Big differences to the UK/EU and a more satisfactory relationship.
Most importantly their population is strongly in favour of the EU, doesn’t Poland regularly top the EU favourability surveys? A populist government shitting over something popular with voters would be a novel approach.
You mean, like we see with the Tories and taxing the workers?
We’re still in the phoney, feckall jam tomorrow stage of the Tories war on want doesn’t get. The blitzkrieg when it comes should be fun.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Although I posted what I did, I have no problem with a lady wearing a burqa, but I do have reservations about the whole face being covered, particularly when the wearer is in a job or situation which requires them to communicate with others.
i really like Quincel's tips - credible, not hedged by getout clauses and lucidly explained. This one looks totally convincing.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
I think interest rates have to rise, and will do so, albeit slowly at first. Currently we have negative real interest rates because of inflation. To prevent that gap from increasing they need to go up, even before we get to the need for a positive return on savings. The government can only claim that the spike is temporary for a few months, not forever.
The combination of sub inflationary wage growth (with real pay cuts across many sectors), rising energy and food bills, increased NI, and fiscal drag on income tax thresholds is going to be quite some financial squeeze, even before we get rising interest rates.
Given the amount of debt would a bit of inflation be the worst thing in the world? If we could get on with some house building we might even manage to keep property prices stable.
I am old enough to remember when inflation was considered part of the sickness of economic decline.
Broad sunlit uplands.
That was the bad kind of inflation overseen by red in tooth and claw Marxists like..er..Wilson, Callaghan and Healey. We’re gonna get the real good stuff now.
Nah if we have years of inflation being between 3-5% typically and sometimes upto 9% briefly then that would be the kind of inflation overseen by red in tooth and claw Marxists like ... er ... Churchill, Eden, Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Hume.
Oh yes, and Wilson but his first time around.
My PB pedantry of the day: Douglas-Home is the spelling, though it is pronounced as you have it.
And nobody should say otherwise, not even the Queen Hirsel.
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
I for one am completely flabbergasted by this unexpected take by Brian Wilson.
And I gey scunnered that the Scotsman should print yet another B. Wilson screed.
Charles must be fuming at all those unelected opiners trying to influence Scottish politics, though tbf that influence seems somewhat teensy weensy.
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
Emma Raducanu needs to decide if she is a tennis player or a celebrity lilke Kournikova. Tbf she's achieved more than her already, but it is difficult to be both.
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
I for one am completely flabbergasted by this unexpected take by Brian Wilson.
And I gey scunnered that the Scotsman should print yet another B. Wilson screed.
Charles must be fuming at all those unelected opiners trying to influence Scottish politics, though tbf that influence seems somewhat teensy weensy.
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
Do you have the same opinion of the Nat Onal?
It is a, some might say, cynical spinoff from the Herald which lost much of its trade when it went all Britnat Scotsman-style and had to do something to try and regain some of the revenue. I don't like the tabloid style but that is probably inevitable as it is the only pro-indy newspaper in Scotland. I'd much rather have the old Scotsman back again.
PS IN facvt what happened to the Herald was another great crime.
Emma Raducanu needs to decide if she is a tennis player or a celebrity lilke Kournikova. Tbf she's achieved more than her already, but it is difficult to be both.
FFS - she is 18, pretty evidently with more drive and dedication than anyone on this forum, or virtually anyone in the country. Let her enjoy whatever path she goes on.
You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.
Emma Raducanu needs to decide if she is a tennis player or a celebrity lilke Kournikova. Tbf she's achieved more than her already, but it is difficult to be both.
Sharapova might be a better parallel. Early superstar, including Wimbledon champion at 17. Career well past its peak after she was 23 with a mixture of injuries and lucrative modelling contracts. A couple more titles, then the doping ban and an essentially failed comeback.
Emma Raducanu needs to decide if she is a tennis player or a celebrity lilke Kournikova. Tbf she's achieved more than her already, but it is difficult to be both.
FFS - she is 18, pretty evidently with more drive and dedication than anyone on this forum, or virtually anyone in the country. Let her enjoy whatever path she goes on.
Wasn't a criticism in the slightest. Well wasn't meant to be. She can do what the heck she wants with her life. But no coach, and doing almost everything other than practice is not the way to multiple grand slams. She may not want that, and that is fine. I'm damn sure I know what I'd be doing in a similar situation at 18.
Emma Raducanu needs to decide if she is a tennis player or a celebrity lilke Kournikova. Tbf she's achieved more than her already, but it is difficult to be both.
Sharapova might be a better parallel. Early superstar, including Wimbledon champion at 17. Career well past its peak after she was 23 with a mixture of injuries and lucrative modelling contracts. A couple more titles, then the doping ban and an essentially failed comeback.
Hopefully that will not be Radacanu’s fate.
Whatever, fate won't just happen to her. She's pretty determined to be in control, as witness her search for a new coach, despite the old one having helped her get to the pinnacle of her sport.
You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.
Not really a like for like comparison. For one thing its the Express so its not even worth using as chip paper.
For another helping the third world with vaccine rollouts etc is a laudable and achievable goal. Compelling the Chinese, Saudis and even the Americans to abolish the death penalty is not.
Emma Raducanu needs to decide if she is a tennis player or a celebrity lilke Kournikova. Tbf she's achieved more than her already, but it is difficult to be both.
FFS - she is 18, pretty evidently with more drive and dedication than anyone on this forum, or virtually anyone in the country. Let her enjoy whatever path she goes on.
Wasn't a criticism in the slightest. Well wasn't meant to be. She can do what the heck she wants with her life. But no coach, and doing almost everything other than practice is not the way to multiple grand slams. She may not want that, and that is fine. I'm damn sure I know what I'd be doing in a similar situation at 18.
I just think there is something distasteful about the public telling 18 year olds what they need to do, when the person in question has shown excellent judgment throughout, is more knowledgeable of what she needs to do, and has already shown massive dedication, to a level beyond the comprehension of most of us.
No. They receive plenty of cash from the EU and their courts/system doesn't gold plate anything. Big differences to the UK/EU and a more satisfactory relationship.
But they are forecast to be a net payer into the budget around 2029 or 2030, like Hungary. And at that time, as some Hungarian minister speculated recently, maybe they won't be so willing to put up with EU bullying any more?
"Hey! Look at me! Nobody's being paying attention to me for at least fifteen seconds!"
I don't think there ever was a real danger of minor events in France going uncommented on here. You do realise there is an election campaign on? One of the pre-requisites is to be noticed.
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
Do you have the same opinion of the National?
I have a professional interest in that - we're leading a consortium of NGOs to advertise our view on what countries can do on climate change at the start of COP. The main advert will be a full page in The Times, but we thought we'd try to influence the Scottish Government while we were at it, and perhaps they'll be distributing the National at delegates' hotels, so we thought of taking an ad there too. Do Scots here think that the paper is in fact widely read by SNP ministers, or is it more of a supportive paper but not especially influential?
Star Sports (bookmaker) video, The Polling Station, after the Conservative conference. William (the one on the right) attended both main parties' conferences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP7Tke91nQw
Spoiler: Liz Truss has drifted but may still be value, and betting on the inflation rate.
Anecdote alert: Just had delivery of logs from our usual supplier. He was very animated about the state of business. Demand has gone through the roof but he's struggling with supplies of timber for his business. A friend of his in construction ordered the a steel joist for a project 6 weeks ago - usual price £190. He's just ordered another one: £580!
I think the shit is well and truly flying towards the fan.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the solution is to just pay people more or something.
Yes, it is.
We covered this the other day, demand for timber has gone through the roof in the USA and people are paying whatever it takes to buy timber and as a result global prices have surged all over the planet. Americans will just pay whatever it takes to get the timber, or not trade. That is how market economics works.
People here need to make a choice: pay the global price for timber, or don't. Whinging that the price has gone up won't get you anywhere.
I believe in the free market and I often agree with you, but I find your single-minded dedication to it verges on risible idealism. You hang far too much on singular ideas and your good advocacy for free market principles is slightly spoiled as a result. In this case, you're missing the benefits of stability and slow change.
A virtue done to the detriment of all others is sin.
You can't buck the market. Read DavidL's excellent article he shared and then come back and say that its "risible idealism" to realise that the market price of timber has gone up because of global conditions. 🤦♂️
What should be done? Should the government pay the difference on the global price to ensure there's been no price rise? The price has gone up, just as the price of gas has gone up, globally. This is a rebound as there'd been little demand so production halted and the price crashed and now demand has resumed faster than production has resumed. Globally.
Give it 12 months and production will be running full pelt again and the price will be lowered again. This has been explained time and again to you, but if you want to call understanding what is going on "risible" then just continue to be pig ignorant.
My opinion is that you need to be careful about making long-term decisions in response to short-term stimuli. I'd say the same thing about government policy and about business decisions.
An example would be if you're faced with a temporary spike in demand, you cover it with overtime rather than hiring. The response to the at-pump fuel shortages in recent weeks was not to increase imports or start to build more forecourts, but largely to do nothing but wait for the demand to settle back to a sustainable level.
This is what worries me about the present direction of government policy and should worry any conservative (I recognise that isn't a description you'd apply to yourself). If you want to flush a spider out of your house, you can use fire but you might find that approach a little too successful. And you, cheering them on, seem very keen on showing the measure can work (it can) and not at all bothered that we might end up with no roof.
Well yes but the government isn't making long-term decisions on the basis of these short-term spikes. The Bank of England has rightly recognised the short-term pressures. The government has been rather inactive. Which is exactly as it should be.
The businesses concerned have options before them. They can pay the higher prices and pass that on to their consumers. Or they can shut down. Or they can look for alternatives. Or they can bear it and wait for things to get better. That's up to each company to do what is in their own long-term strategic interest.
Only if something affects the market as a whole, as the shutdown of fertiliser plants resulting in no CO2 did, should the state get involved. Other than that, its not the state's business to tell companies how to operate.
Migrant Unionists quoting Daisley in a whataboutery defence of Johnson is as good a metaphor for the current state of Unionism as there could be.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
Nicola Sturgeon's cynical abuse of Supreme Court over UN Convention on the Rights of the Child points to Referendum Bill blind alley There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
I for one am completely flabbergasted by this unexpected take by Brian Wilson.
And I gey scunnered that the Scotsman should print yet another B. Wilson screed.
Charles must be fuming at all those unelected opiners trying to influence Scottish politics, though tbf that influence seems somewhat teensy weensy.
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
Do you have the same opinion of the Nat Onal?
It is a, some might say, cynical spinoff from the Herald which lost much of its trade when it went all Britnat Scotsman-style and had to do something to try and regain some of the revenue. I don't like the tabloid style but that is probably inevitable as it is the only pro-indy newspaper in Scotland. I'd much rather have the old Scotsman back again.
PS IN facvt what happened to the Herald was another great crime.
It's an interesting question. There are obviously myriad reasons for the tragic decline of newspapers (The Scotsman and Herald in this case) but is the ghastly descent into filling pages with opinions, comments and views one of those reasons or just a symptom? I may be guilty of nostalgia but I'm pretty sure many columnists used to be objective (if a little world weary) observers. Now they seem laughably transparent partisan hacks, only taken seriously by the transparently partisan.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
This is a hugely important statement from @jakejsullivan to @POLITICOEurope’s@herszenhorn. It signals an important US shift on European defense. The message to the EU is clear: go forth. But stop the theoretical debates and put forth something real. Ball now in EU’s court.
“I think the way to carry this forward is to get practical and specific,” Sullivan said. “It is not to talk in terms of the theology of particular terms or the philosophy of particular structures. It is to talk about the what, the how, and the when. And then for the United States to be strongly supportive of that, with that being carried forward.”
Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?
I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?
I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?
Star Sports (bookmaker) video, The Polling Station, after the Conservative conference. William (the one on the right) attended both main parties' conferences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP7Tke91nQw
Spoiler: Liz Truss has drifted but may still be value, and betting on the inflation rate.
TBH I suspect the next Tory Leader, or even PM isn't in a senior rank in the Government at the moment. Going back to what we were discussing earlier, I suspect that Johnson will go on as long as he possibly can, but eventually there'll be a spectacular 'crash and burn'. Which will mean that another party or parties will form the Government and the present leadership of the Conservatives will be so discredited that the party as a whole will throw the rascals out. I just hope I live long enough to see it!
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
Do you have the same opinion of the National?
I have a professional interest in that - we're leading a consortium of NGOs to advertise our view on what countries can do on climate change at the start of COP. The main advert will be a full page in The Times, but we thought we'd try to influence the Scottish Government while we were at it, and perhaps they'll be distributing the National at delegates' hotels, so we thought of taking an ad there too. Do Scots here think that the paper is in fact widely read by SNP ministers, or is it more of a supportive paper but not especially influential?
I'm sure it is widely read by SNP ministers but, with the best will in the world (which, TBF I don't have when it comes The National), it is little more than a joke. There's a reason it's nicknamed "McPravda".
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
Do you have the same opinion of the National?
I have a professional interest in that - we're leading a consortium of NGOs to advertise our view on what countries can do on climate change at the start of COP. The main advert will be a full page in The Times, but we thought we'd try to influence the Scottish Government while we were at it, and perhaps they'll be distributing the National at delegates' hotels, so we thought of taking an ad there too. Do Scots here think that the paper is in fact widely read by SNP ministers, or is it more of a supportive paper but not especially influential?
I'd say supportive but not especially influential, but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of an ad. Pretty sure it would be seen by most SNP msps and ministers (plus all the Unionists that seem to hang on its every word).
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
This now recurring attempt to suggest that the fact that Boris has destroyed everyone he's been up against (and you can add Cameron & May), is a question mark for him to answer, is frankly a bit desperate. I hate the bloke, but trying to suggest he's not top tier electoral box office is laughable.
Very strange. Corbyn was odds on to be next PM before Boris became Tory leader. Livingstone was odds on to remain Mayor of London before Boris took him on
Boris was also tested against the Remain campaign. Is that a discredited load of rubbish now, or did he pass the test against a worthy rival?
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
Otherwise, I stand by it.
You singularly lack courtesy. I am free to give my opinion, thanks, but if you think I may choose to do so at your invitation, that's funny. Your post was wrong; but you struggle to admit it. Fine, no change.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
Otherwise, I stand by it.
EDIT: PS if my comments were right I have no reason to withdraw them, and if my comments were wrong then you equating Hasidic Jews with the burqa was antisemitism. So either I'm right or you're antisemitic. 🤷♂️
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
Otherwise, I stand by it.
You singularly lack courtesy. I am free to give my opinion, thanks, but if you think I may choose to do so at your invitation, that's funny. Your post was wrong; but you struggle to admit it. Fine, no change.
If my comments were right I have no reason to withdraw them, and if my comments were wrong then you equating Hasidic Jews with the burqa was antisemitism. So either I'm right or you're antisemitic. 🤷♂️
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
Otherwise, I stand by it.
Lol, you may not have expressed an opinion but I will characterise you with what I think is your opinion until you give an opinion.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
Otherwise, I stand by it.
Lol, you may not have expressed an opinion but I will characterise you with what I think is your opinion until you give an opinion.
This libertarianism thing is great!
He expressed an opinion equating the burqa with Hasidic Jews.
If he does think that the burqa is misogynistic and wrong then equating that with Hasidic Jews is saying that Hasidic Jews are misogynistic and wrong. That is antisemitism, unless he wishes to substantiate the point.
If he doesn't think that the burqa is misogynistic and wrong, then I was right. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
Wilful blindness to misogyny, or antisemitism? Which is it? Both are wrong.
Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?
I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?
I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?
I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.
Smarkets are a very small operator.
I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate. It used to be the case that their market liquidity was linked to betfair, too. By putting up liquidity on an illiquid market, you could generate smarkets liquidity at whatever odds you chose. It was borderline fraud, so I didn’t take advantage, personally, but along with the other concerns, I became uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them nowadays, I keep my balance low.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
Otherwise, I stand by it.
You singularly lack courtesy. I am free to give my opinion, thanks, but if you think I may choose to do so at your invitation, that's funny. Your post was wrong; but you struggle to admit it. Fine, no change.
If my comments were right I have no reason to withdraw them, and if my comments were wrong then you equating Hasidic Jews with the burqa was antisemitism. So either I'm right or you're antisemitic. 🤷♂️
I've flagged this. You are not entitled, even on here, to suggest that I may be anti-semitic.
Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?
I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?
I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?
Betfair are part of a £14bn company. If gamblers had a credit rating system in place Betfair would be AAA.
Smarkets is a much smaller company, and their group trades their own markets as well as gambling elsewhere. As far as I know they are successful in both, but gambling is gambling and losses are possible. They have also been around for a shorter period of time. I am quite happy having a significant but not life changing amount there.
Personally I wouldn't rely much on client segregated funds or regulators, for example it transpired this week that Football Index spent £15m of client funds on trying and failing to sell the business model internationally.
Lost deposits from betting firms going bust do happen but would be well under 1% of profit, perhaps even under 0.1% of lifetime profit for me, so not a huge consideration as long as you are careful and realistic. If its too good to be true it often is. Read reviews and think about their business models. There is a chance of restrictive UK legislation coming into place which might make both companies unprofitable quite quickly if an extreme path is chosen.
Accounts being hacked would be another issue for big balances, so usual password advice and take up 2FA where offered.
You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
It should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy underpinning it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
I 100% agree with your opinion but disagree with your methods. I'd rather see the repugnant regressive philosophy underpinning it challenged than banned.
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
You should really withdraw that comment about me. Given that I have never, on here, given my own view on the matter.
Feel free to give your opinion then and if I was wrong I will withdraw the comment.
Otherwise, I stand by it.
You singularly lack courtesy. I am free to give my opinion, thanks, but if you think I may choose to do so at your invitation, that's funny. Your post was wrong; but you struggle to admit it. Fine, no change.
If my comments were right I have no reason to withdraw them, and if my comments were wrong then you equating Hasidic Jews with the burqa was antisemitism. So either I'm right or you're antisemitic. 🤷♂️
I've flagged this. You are not entitled, even on here, to suggest that I may be anti-semitic.
Flag it all you like. You're the one who equated the burqa to Hasidic Jews.
If you wish to equate the burqa to Jews, and if you do agree that the burqa is misogynistic, then you're saying that Jews are. That is antisemitism pure and simple.
If @rcs1000 objects then he can ban me if he likes. I stand by it. You are the one who chose to bring Jews into the conversation.
Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.
Do you have the same opinion of the National?
I have a professional interest in that - we're leading a consortium of NGOs to advertise our view on what countries can do on climate change at the start of COP. The main advert will be a full page in The Times, but we thought we'd try to influence the Scottish Government while we were at it, and perhaps they'll be distributing the National at delegates' hotels, so we thought of taking an ad there too. Do Scots here think that the paper is in fact widely read by SNP ministers, or is it more of a supportive paper but not especially influential?
I'd say supportive but not especially influential, but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of an ad. Pretty sure it would be seen by most SNP msps and ministers (plus all the Unionists that seem to hang on its every word).
I agree. I'd add that I can't imagine that 'they' would be distributing it at hotels if 'they' refers to the SG; and also the National has not always been very friendly to the SNP, more on the Green/Trot side at some times. But with the Greens now in partnership ...
Hotel operators, you [NP] mean? I have a slight concern some hotel companies might not issue it if only because they might be using a standard list drawn up in London without considering national and regional differences, but you will have more of a sense of that than I do (not being a patron of that kind of hotel inmy working life).
You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.
I don't think there will be moves to expel Poland or for it to leave of its own accord. Nevertheless the absence of Rule of Law in Poland and Hungary is an existential threat to the EU, that Brexit turned out not to be. The EU and member states will need to confront the issue.
Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?
I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?
I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?
I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.
Smarkets are a very small operator.
I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.
ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I think the state has a right to insist people remove face covering attire for things like testifying in court, that sort of thing. Other than that I think being strongly against such things is as far as you can go - it certainly is not felt to be a religious requirement in most places, so it is cultural, and it's ok to be strongly critical of cultural practices even if they are prohibited.
This is a hugely important statement from @jakejsullivan to @POLITICOEurope’s@herszenhorn. It signals an important US shift on European defense. The message to the EU is clear: go forth. But stop the theoretical debates and put forth something real. Ball now in EU’s court.
“I think the way to carry this forward is to get practical and specific,” Sullivan said. “It is not to talk in terms of the theology of particular terms or the philosophy of particular structures. It is to talk about the what, the how, and the when. And then for the United States to be strongly supportive of that, with that being carried forward.”
There's an unintentionally hilarious line in that article: "Sullivan said that conversations between leaders, including at the G7 summit in the U.K. earlier this year, were helping to bridge any gaps."
Wasn't it at that summit that Biden, Johnson and ScoMo had a conversation about the AUKUS deal that has caused the Frogs to throw their toys out of the pram?
Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?
I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?
I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?
I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.
Smarkets are a very small operator.
I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.
ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
They're also doing a lot of offers to have 0% commission which makes it curious how they're making money. Presumably for those not using a 0% commission offer.
I've got a 0% commission arrangement with them which makes them far better value at the same odds as Betfair for trading.
I'm just curious how safe the funds are. No good paying 0% commission if you lose 100% of your bankroll.
You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.
Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?
I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?
I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?
I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.
Smarkets are a very small operator.
I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.
ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
Betfair lose money on their seeding and expect to do so, but hope to grow volumes and clients. Smarkets are trying to win punters money. Whilst both trade in their own markets their rationale for doing so is completely different.
Comments
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1446781207551823876?s=20
When the First Minister dropped the A-word, during her Covid statement at Holyrood, I initially thought I’d misheard her.
'Antagonise', maybe. 'Anathematise', possibly. 'Aggrandise', mostly likely. But apologise? Isn’t that something for mere mortals — and Westminster Tories? It’s not that ‘sorry’ isn’t in the First Minister’s vocabulary; it’s just that she seems to assume the Oxford English Dictionary includes the word with her opponents in mind.
https://stephendaisley.substack.com/p/sorry-not-sorry
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/10/turkey-pre-qualifying-2021.html
The tyre situation come the race might be interesting.
But its a win in the PR stakes as it sounds good.
I would not be surprised.
Tonsorial standards have definitely dropped!
I do see wearing it as cultural separatism & a rejection of our society. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with the regular headscarf. There’s something about refusing to show your face that offends common decency.
Burkas should be banned. And the deeply regressive conservative philosophy that encourages it, challenged.
Ideally by centrists and not left to the racist nutters.
Any Effie Deans hot takes?
But what's even worse is people who claim to be "decent" or "liberal" who have no qualms with this behaviour. Who don't see any issue with treating women as second class citizens.
Its not that people like @Northern_Al want to see it eradicated via other means than a ban like I do - its that they don't even see the issue with it in the first place.
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
1) Brexit. This was a massively divisive issue with Leavers in particular feeling persecuted and crushed. The out result was nothing short of a liberation for them. Boris is their Nelson Mandela - his pivotal role in bringing about their freedom and self-respect has forged a loyalty that can never be dimmed.
2) Boris. Most people don't particularly like politicians - they find them either slippery or odd. Boris however, when seen on TV, exudes a cheery normality. Earlier in the year two news clips on the same day demonstrated this point: in one we had Sir Keir being thrown out of a Bath pub amid an angry shouting match; in the other Boris was filmed, pint in hand, having a relaxed conflab with two members of the public on a pub-garden bench. If you're not interested in policy or performance, as most people aren't, Boris just seems a perfectly fine guy to have around.
The burqa and the misogynistic attitude surrounding it is abusive, just like Catholic Priests fiddling with kids.
Just because some abused kids can live healthy lives doesn't make it OK.
Just beecause it is a religion that is behind it doesn't make it OK.
Whether its Catholic Priests abusing kids, or Muslim "conservatives" abusing women, we should stand up to it and say it isn't OK.
There is something peculiarly obnoxious about the behaviour of Sturgeon, Swinney and co, which culminated in its intellectual annihilation in the Supreme Court this week.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/nicola-sturgeons-cynical-abuse-of-supreme-court-over-un-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-points-to-referendum-bill-blind-alley-brian-wilson-3412217?amp
Poland is a major net recipient of cash so has no reason to quit.
The EU26 would need to unanimously expel Poland - and Hungary would veto it. Similarly Poland would veto moves to expel Hungary.
If he continues to poll 40% he has nothing to worry about. But let's say for the sake of argument that he somehow loses the 40% later in the term and looks like he might lose the election. If you're the Tories, you can get rid of Boris, but things will still be bollocksed up. You can switch in a different guy but the best they have to run on is "we made a mess like you wouldn't believe, but at least we've got rid of the guy that did it, how about giving our new guy a go and see if they can do somewhat less badly". Whereas if you keep Boris, there's a decent hope that the 40% who were still enthusiastic two years in will eventually swing back come election time.
Oh yes, and Wilson but his first time around.
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
https://twitter.com/BFMTV/status/1446789179027902465
You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.
Tbf she's achieved more than her already, but it is difficult to be both.
Just like Brexit was in 2013.
Don't underestimate the EU's bullying inflexibility and ability to turn a problem into a disaster.
PS IN facvt what happened to the Herald was another great crime.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hopefully that will not be Radacanu’s fate.
She may not want that, and that is fine. I'm damn sure I know what I'd be doing in a similar situation at 18.
For another helping the third world with vaccine rollouts etc is a laudable and achievable goal. Compelling the Chinese, Saudis and even the Americans to abolish the death penalty is not.
Just watch and enjoy.
You do realise there is an election campaign on? One of the pre-requisites is to be noticed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP7Tke91nQw
Spoiler: Liz Truss has drifted but may still be value, and betting on the inflation rate.
The businesses concerned have options before them. They can pay the higher prices and pass that on to their consumers. Or they can shut down. Or they can look for alternatives. Or they can bear it and wait for things to get better. That's up to each company to do what is in their own long-term strategic interest.
Only if something affects the market as a whole, as the shutdown of fertiliser plants resulting in no CO2 did, should the state get involved. Other than that, its not the state's business to tell companies how to operate.
But apart from that - without seeing the detail - it’s an interesting concept
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
It signals an important US shift on European defense. The message to the EU is clear: go forth. But stop the theoretical debates and put forth something real. Ball now in EU’s court.
https://twitter.com/maxbergmann/status/1446797987934580737?s=20
Article:
https://www.politico.eu/article/jake-sullivan-biden-national-security-transatlantic/
“I think the way to carry this forward is to get practical and specific,” Sullivan said. “It is not to talk in terms of the theology of particular terms or the philosophy of particular structures. It is to talk about the what, the how, and the when. And then for the United States to be strongly supportive of that, with that being carried forward.”
I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?
I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?
Which will mean that another party or parties will form the Government and the present leadership of the Conservatives will be so discredited that the party as a whole will throw the rascals out.
I just hope I live long enough to see it!
Boris was also tested against the Remain campaign. Is that a discredited load of rubbish now, or did he pass the test against a worthy rival?
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
Otherwise, I stand by it.
Polls about to close
https://www.idnes.cz/volby
https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/#live
https://www.volby.cz/pls/ps2021/ps?xjazyk=CZ
Thanks
DC
This libertarianism thing is great!
If he does think that the burqa is misogynistic and wrong then equating that with Hasidic Jews is saying that Hasidic Jews are misogynistic and wrong. That is antisemitism, unless he wishes to substantiate the point.
If he doesn't think that the burqa is misogynistic and wrong, then I was right. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. 🙈
Wilful blindness to misogyny, or antisemitism? Which is it? Both are wrong.
Smarkets are a very small operator.
I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate. It used to be the case that their market liquidity was linked to betfair, too. By putting up liquidity on an illiquid market, you could generate smarkets liquidity at whatever odds you chose. It was borderline fraud, so I didn’t take advantage, personally, but along with the other concerns, I became uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them nowadays, I keep my balance low.
Smarkets is a much smaller company, and their group trades their own markets as well as gambling elsewhere. As far as I know they are successful in both, but gambling is gambling and losses are possible. They have also been around for a shorter period of time. I am quite happy having a significant but not life changing amount there.
Personally I wouldn't rely much on client segregated funds or regulators, for example it transpired this week that Football Index spent £15m of client funds on trying and failing to sell the business model internationally.
Lost deposits from betting firms going bust do happen but would be well under 1% of profit, perhaps even under 0.1% of lifetime profit for me, so not a huge consideration as long as you are careful and realistic. If its too good to be true it often is. Read reviews and think about their business models. There is a chance of restrictive UK legislation coming into place which might make both companies unprofitable quite quickly if an extreme path is chosen.
Accounts being hacked would be another issue for big balances, so usual password advice and take up 2FA where offered.
If you wish to equate the burqa to Jews, and if you do agree that the burqa is misogynistic, then you're saying that Jews are. That is antisemitism pure and simple.
If @rcs1000 objects then he can ban me if he likes. I stand by it. You are the one who chose to bring Jews into the conversation.
Hotel operators, you [NP] mean? I have a slight concern some hotel companies might not issue it if only because they might be using a standard list drawn up in London without considering national and regional differences, but you will have more of a sense of that than I do (not being a patron of that kind of hotel inmy working life).
Priests abusing children is wrong.
"Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong.
What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?
ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
Wasn't it at that summit that Biden, Johnson and ScoMo had a conversation about the AUKUS deal that has caused the Frogs to throw their toys out of the pram?
I've got a 0% commission arrangement with them which makes them far better value at the same odds as Betfair for trading.
I'm just curious how safe the funds are. No good paying 0% commission if you lose 100% of your bankroll.