politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember when the BBC’s Woman’s Hour asked David Cameron and D

Options
24

Comments

  • chestnut
    chestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Asking for a friend, is the Scottish Parliament sovereign or not?

    It's an assembly that has delegated authority from a higher authority in Westminster.

    The people voted to endorse the arrangement in 2014 with a 'once in a generation' decision.
  • Big_G_NorthWales
    Big_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,238
    Re indy2 does anyone know the legal grounds for delaying a Section 30 request. Does the agreement have to be mutually agreed and can the Scots appeal to the High Court in Scotland /England to force agreement
  • Razedabode
    Razedabode Posts: 3,117
    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Would seem a pointless and costly exercise
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Re indy2 does anyone know the legal grounds for delaying a Section 30 request. Does the agreement have to be mutually agreed and can the Scots appeal to the High Court in Scotland /England to force agreement

    I doubt the SNP have any case whatsoever to force the UK government to hand over that power.
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited March 2017
    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion

    I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans

    You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

    Chalk and cheese.
    I wasn't equating the cas but the initial reaction to them on here.

    "GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
    It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
    The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
    He killed someone, and has a manslaughter conviction. Do you agree that's right?
    He did the right thing in my opinion, I don't think he should have had to stand trial from what I have seen of it. If you disagree, fair enough I cant be bothered to argue with you, its down to you
    Then your opinion is pants and stupid.

    We like to think of our soldiers as being the best in the world, lions, above reproach, etc etc, partly because of their standards - they're 'better' than the opposition. What Blackman did went well beyond those standards.

    It also has an effect on the way foreigners who may encounter those troops. Like the infamous Daily Mirror front page, Blackman's actions make the British Army's task a little bit harder.

    I'm glad he's out: it cannot have been easy for his family, and the circumstances were unusual. But the idea that the deliberate killing of an injured enemy should have been ignored is ... interesting.
    It's what I think, based on what I have seen and read. He did the right thing, and I am glad he did it, so were the rest of his squad, he probably saved half a dozen lives. You know best I suppose, fir enough
    Why did he 'do the right thing' ?

    Would you say the same if the situation has been reversed, and a British soldier had been killed?
    Unless you saw Susanne Evans last night you might struggle to put yourself into the mindset of a UKIPer. 'Rule of Law' means nothing. Certainly not compared to 'My Country Right or Wrong'-or in fact 'My Coutry Right' because to believe it can do wrong is unpatriotic.

    She was asked about a 'financial settlement' with the EU and without knowing a single fact dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' They are the sons and daughters of Trumpism. It's not attractive but it's what is now known as Populism.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Asking for a friend, is the Scottish Parliament sovereign or not?

    I would say not - as it has only limited devolved powers, bestowed by a National government.
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    Razedabode said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Would seem a pointless and costly exercise
    The unionists would surely boycott such a vote.
  • Big_G_NorthWales
    Big_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,238
    Razedabode said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Would seem a pointless and costly exercise
    It has been said that any attempt at an unofficial referendum would fail on legal challenge and costs
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.
  • Cyan
    Cyan Posts: 1,262
    edited March 2017
    It looks as though Macron too will shirk the third debate, three days before the vote. He will prefer to get his message across at a meeting, because in a debate he'd have to put up with crossfire from his opponents, and some of that crossfire would be unfiltered. That's according to this source.

    In other words, he's crap on TV and he's frit.

    Does anyone still think his price of 1.54 is value, given that such a large proportion of poll respondents are saying they haven't decided to vote for any particular candidate?
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    They were playing the long game. Usher in a period of glorious Thatcherism to really annoy the Scots. :)
  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,290
    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    chestnut said:

    Pre-negotiations with Gulf Cooperation Council on a Free Trade Deal.

    http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/28/03/2017/UK-and-Qatar-set-up-joint-committee-to-pave-way-for-post-Brexit-trade-deal-May

    The EU have failed for decades to broker a deal. This is already a £22bn export market for us, and we provide roughly a quarter of EU exports to the region.

    If I recall correctly (and I may not), there is already a co-operation agreement (which is like a precursor to an FTA) between the EU and the GCC, but not yet an FTA.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Happened to catch a bit of Holyrood proceedings.

    Is it the case that the voted for proposal for an independence referendum includes the idiocy of letting EU nationals have the vote?

    Imagine it will be as normal election rules , if you are resident and have main address in Scotland and able to vote in elections then you get a vote.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Roger said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion

    I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans

    You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

    Chalk and cheese.
    I wasn't equating the cas but the initial reaction to them on here.

    "GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
    It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
    The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
    He killed someone, and has a manslaughter conviction. Do you agree that's right?
    He did the right thing in my opinion, I don't think he should have had to stand trial from what I have seen of it. If you disagree, fair enough I cant be bothered to argue with you, its down to you
    Then your opinion is pants and stupid.

    I'm glad he's out: it cannot have been easy for his family, and the circumstances were unusual. But the idea that the deliberate killing of an injured enemy should have been ignored is ... interesting.
    It's what I think, based on what I have seen and read. He did the right thing, and I am glad he did it, so were the rest of his squad, he probably saved half a dozen lives. You know best I suppose, fir enough
    Why did he 'do the right thing' ?

    Would you say the same if the situation has been reversed, and a British soldier had been killed?
    Unless you saw Susanne Evans last night you might struggle to put yourself into the mindset of a UKIPer. 'Rule of Law' means nothing. Certainly not compared to 'My Country Right or Wrong'-or in fact 'My Coutry Right' because to believe it can do wrong is unpatriotic.

    She was asked about a 'financial settlement' with the EU and without knowing a single fact dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' They are the sons and daughters of Trumpism. It's not attractive but it's what is now known as Populism.
    Haha!! Probably not the best Kipper to use as an example!
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Cyan said:

    It looks as though Macron too will shirk the third debate, three days before the vote. He will prefer to get his message across at a meeting, because in a debate he'd have to put up with crossfire from his opponents, and some of that crossfire would be unfiltered. That's according to this source.

    In other words, he's crap on TV and he's frit.

    Does anyone still think his price is value, given that such a large proportion of poll respondents are saying they've decided to vote for an particular candidate?

    "Hold" would be my call on him now.

    He certainly isn't a sell.
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    williamglenn said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
    No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course. :)
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    Cyan said:

    It looks as though Macron too will shirk the third debate, three days before the vote. He will prefer to get his message across at a meeting, because in a debate he'd have to put up with crossfire from his opponents, and some of that crossfire would be unfiltered. That's according to this source.

    In other words, he's crap on TV and he's frit.

    Does anyone still think his price is value, given that such a large proportion of poll respondents are saying they've decided to vote for an particular candidate?

    In Macron's favour is the fact that he is the preferred second option for almost everyone, even among Le Pen voters.

    That's the advantage of being a blank slate. No-one really knows what you stand for. Can you blame him for not wanting to change that?
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    You said "We like to think of our soldiers as being the best in the world, lions, above reproach".. and so I take it that you think that Sgt Blackman's action, and the fact that it was welcomed by his squad, including two who volunteered to shoot the captive themselves, means they are less than that

    But I'd not call them 'feeble cowards'. They're your words. I can sympathise with the stress and the situation Blackman and his colleagues found themselves in, but the court has showed that he did wrong. You would ignore that. I see that as being a really bad thing.
    Fair enough, sorry you didn't call them that, I was extrapolating to improve my argument, my bad.

    As regards the case, I had Sgt Blackman down as a bit of a wrongun before I saw the Panorama. Now I am sure he did the right thing, because...

    The captive had just been trying to kill Sgt Blackman and his team, and was shot down and almost killed by one of our helicopters two minutes previously. That alone makes it seem crazy that SB was charged w murder... two mins before our helicopter almost deliberately killed the bloke!

    If Sgt Blackman had stuck to the letter of the law, he would have had to apply first aid in a dangerous war zone, then call for an emergency team (MERT) to drive through booby trapped fields to come and get them, risking everyone in that teams life as well as his squad, and alerting the taliban to exactly where they all were... they would have been bait, it could have been a massacre, and for what?! A half dead enemy who we shot down whilst trying to kill our marines five mins before. As I say if you disagree I wont argue, the marines themselves are split on it, but plenty in his team say he did the right thing and they couldn't care less
    I believe it's called the Geneva Convention, which he said on tape he knew he was breaking. Or does that only apply to our own men?
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?

    Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.

    For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
  • chestnut
    chestnut Posts: 7,341
    williamglenn said:

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.

    "Scottish" citizen? They are fellow Britons.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. G, cheers for that answer.
  • Theuniondivvie
    Theuniondivvie Posts: 44,327
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    Why does everyone always forget the Libs (apart from the usual reasons)?
  • Cyan
    Cyan Posts: 1,262
    Razedabode said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Would seem a pointless and costly exercise
    I'd call it scary. The Orange Order wouldn't take it lying down.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    RobD said:

    williamglenn said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
    No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course. :)
    Spain and the Dordogne will be empty when they are all shoved on the boats home, Gibralter thrown to the wolves
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    chestnut said:

    williamglenn said:

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.

    "Scottish" citizen? They are fellow Britons.
    williamglenn doesn't recognise the UK as a state :p
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited March 2017
    isam said:

    Roger said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion

    I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans

    You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

    Chalk and cheese.
    I wasn't equating the cas but the initial reaction to them on here.

    "GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
    It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
    The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
    He killed someone, and has a manslaughter conviction. Do you agree that's right?
    He did the right thing in my opinion, I don't think he should have had to stand trial from what I have seen of it. If you disagree, fair enough I cant be bothered to argue with you, its down to you
    Then your opinion is pants and stupid.

    I'm glad he's out: it cannot have been easy for his family, and the circumstances were unusual. But the idea that the deliberate killing of an injured enemy should have been ignored is ... interesting.
    It's what I think, based on what I have seen and read. He did the right thing, and I am glad he did it, so were the rest of his squad, he probably saved half a dozen lives. You know best I suppose, fir enough
    Why did he 'do the right thing' ?

    Would you say the same if the situation has been reversed, and a British soldier had been killed?
    Unless you saw Susanne Evans last night you might struggle to put yourself into the mindset of a UKIPer. 'Rule of Law' means nothing. Certainly not compared to 'My Country Right or Wrong'-or in fact 'My Coutry Right' because to believe it can do wrong is unpatriotic.

    She was asked about a 'financial settlement' with the EU and without knowing a single fact dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' They are the sons and daughters of Trumpism. It's not attractive but it's what is now known as Populism.
    Haha!! Probably not the best Kipper to use as an example!
    I know there are worse which makes most of us shudder
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    edited March 2017
    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    You said "We like to think of our soldiers as being the best in the world, lions, above reproach".. and so I take it that you think that Sgt Blackman's action, and the fact that it was welcomed by his squad, including two who volunteered to shoot the captive themselves, means they are less than that

    But I'd not call them 'feeble cowards'. They're your words. I can sympathise with the stress and the situation Blackman and his colleagues found themselves in, but the court has showed that he did wrong. You would ignore that. I see that as being a really bad thing.
    Fair enough, sorry you didn't call them that, I was extrapolating to improve my argument, my bad.

    As regards the case, I had Sgt Blackman down as a bit of a wrongun before I saw the Panorama. Now I am sure he did the right thing, because...

    The captive had just been trying to kill Sgt Blackman and his team, and was shot down and almost killed by one of our helicopters two minutes previously. That alone makes it seem crazy that SB was charged w murder... two mins before our helicopter almost deliberately killed the bloke!

    If Sgt Blackman had stuck to the letter of the law, he would have had to apply first aid in a dangerous war zone, then call for an emergency team (MERT) to drive through booby trapped fields to come and get them, risking everyone in that teams life as well as his squad, and alerting the taliban to exactly where they all were... they would have been bait, it could have been a massacre, and for what?! A half dead enemy who we shot down whilst trying to kill our marines five mins before. As I say if you disagree I wont argue, the marines themselves are split on it, but plenty in his team say he did the right thing and they couldn't care less
    I believe it's called the Geneva Convention, which he said on tape he knew he was breaking. Or does that only apply to our own men?
    How many times do I have to say "fair enough if you don't agree" before you let it go? I am 100% not going to change my mind, why do you bother?

    I never said it only applied to our men, I don't know why you are saying that. If the roles were reversed I'd have expected the enemy to do what Sgt Blackman did
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Theuniondivvie said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    Why does everyone always forget the Libs (apart from the usual reasons)?
    'Cause the Libs have form for going into government with the Tories.

    I'd expect so much better from the SNP, who turned out to be the midwife of Thatcherism.
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    williamglenn said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
    No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course. :)
    Spain and the Dordogne will be empty when they are all shoved on the boats home, Gibralter thrown to the wolves
    Shoved home? Put in camps more like.. :p
  • kle4
    kle4 Posts: 99,113
    RobD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Re indy2 does anyone know the legal grounds for delaying a Section 30 request. Does the agreement have to be mutually agreed and can the Scots appeal to the High Court in Scotland /England to force agreement

    I doubt the SNP have any case whatsoever to force the UK government to hand over that power.
    I doubt they would care to. If they get an early one, fine, if not, also fine.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,077
    edited March 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    Why does everyone always forget the Libs (apart from the usual reasons)?
    'Cause the Libs have form for going into government with the Tories.

    I'd expect so much better from the SNP, who turned out to be the midwife of Thatcherism.
    Nah, I blame Frank Maguire, as he abstained in person :)
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?

    Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.

    For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.

    If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria


    1) An annual income of £150,000
    2) Net contributor to The Exchequer
    3) Those who own their own property outright
  • Big_G_NorthWales
    Big_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,238
    williamglenn said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
    She will end freedom of movement but replace it with a work visa programme that can be devolved to the assemblies and regions so that the commercial needs of all companies UK wide can be satisfied. She will not allow indy2 before GE 2020 no matter the efforts of the SNP.

    Indeed Theresa May and Ruth Davidson will prove formidable opponents to Nicola, unlike David Cameron
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?

    Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.

    For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.

    If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria


    1) An annual income of £150,000
    2) Net contributor to The Exchequer
    3) Those who own their own property outright
    I would make an absolute fortune buying up a one acre plot of land and breaking it down into about 40 million plots.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,077
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?

    Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.

    For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.

    If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria


    1) An annual income of £150,000
    2) Net contributor to The Exchequer
    3) Those who own their own property outright
    Elitist c*** :lol:
  • Cyan
    Cyan Posts: 1,262
    edited March 2017
    malcolmg said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Happened to catch a bit of Holyrood proceedings.

    Is it the case that the voted for proposal for an independence referendum includes the idiocy of letting EU nationals have the vote?

    Imagine it will be as normal election rules , if you are resident and have main address in Scotland and able to vote in elections then you get a vote.
    On the "main address" bit, are you sure that's the rule for Holyrood elections? If say a British citizen has addresses in both Scotland and England, they can vote in local elections in both places, and I thought they could vote in Westminster elections at whichever one of those places they wanted to. I'm suggesting that in an indyref a British citizen who is on the electoral register in Scotland will be able to vote regardless of whether it's their main address or not. Will stand corrected if mistaken.
  • Mortimer
    Mortimer Posts: 14,229
    edited March 2017
    This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!



    *Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!
  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    Frank Maguire

    we do things properly in Ulster
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited March 2017
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    williamglenn said:

    Paristonda said:

    So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.

    Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
    No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course. :)
    Spain and the Dordogne will be empty when they are all shoved on the boats home, Gibralter thrown to the wolves
    It would be interesting to know the numbers of older and unproductive folk being held hostage in Spain and the Dordoine compared to the young thrusting Europeans working in London Edinburgh and Lincolnshire
  • calum
    calum Posts: 3,046
    Time to fire up the old SNP membership surge clock !
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Mortimer said:

    This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!



    *Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!

    Will see you there, hopefully many others too. I will get there about 7ish I reckon.. heads up for the haters :smiley:
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    Frank Maguire

    we do things properly in Ulster
    By my reckoning Thursday is the anniversary of the murder of Airey Neave.

    We're lucky Adrian Elms didn't grow up in Belfast.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    edited March 2017
    OT (or rather on topic for the last thread)

    Been out all day so I have only just seen the last thread header. Congratulations to PB first the most fatuous, purile and disingenuous thread header we have ever had.

    Truly a new low.
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    isam said:

    So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion

    I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans

    You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

    Chalk and cheese.
    I wasn't equating the cases but the initial reaction to them on here.

    "GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
    It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
    The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
    Reading the wikipedia page, regardless of the stress of the situation on the day, and the war in general, it appears that Sgt Blackman was well aware that what he was doing was illegal by his immediate admission on site that "I just broke the Geneva Convention". As such, the Marines had to prosecute - the potential consequences of not for the future treatment of British wounded PoWs are just too great.

    That said, I do understand how good people can do bad things in an awful environment, and I spend a lot of time preaching the adverse effects of stress on decision-making capabilities. My guess is that stress was the grounds for the diminished responsibility ruling.
  • Ishmael_Z
    Ishmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?

    Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.

    For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.

    If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria


    1) An annual income of £150,000
    2) Net contributor to The Exchequer
    3) Those who own their own property outright
    I would make an absolute fortune buying up a one acre plot of land and breaking it down into about 40 million plots.
    We would revive the 40 shilling freeholder: "In 1430, legislation limited the franchise to only those who owned the freehold of land that brought in an annual rent of at least 40 shillings (forty-shilling freeholders)" wikipedia. That's about £900 in 2005 money according to this rather handy page http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency/
    (I would have guessed a lot more).

  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    edited March 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    Frank Maguire

    we do things properly in Ulster
    By my reckoning Thursday is the anniversary of the murder of Airey Neave.

    We're lucky Adrian Elms didn't grow up in Belfast.
    a teetotal misogynist prayeraholic with a tribal hatred or his non religionists - he'd have been an MLA by now
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    rcs1000 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?

    Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.

    For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.

    If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria


    1) An annual income of £150,000
    2) Net contributor to The Exchequer
    3) Those who own their own property outright
    I would make an absolute fortune buying up a one acre plot of land and breaking it down into about 40 million plots.
    Surely paying their salaries at (£150,000 x 40m) would eat away at those profits?
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?

    Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.

    For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.

    If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria


    1) An annual income of £150,000
    2) Net contributor to The Exchequer
    3) Those who own their own property outright

    I'd make that ownership of at least 75 acres. ...
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Mortimer said:

    This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!



    *Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!

    Is that the place near the British Museum?
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,077
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.

    Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.

    Frank Maguire

    we do things properly in Ulster
    By my reckoning Thursday is the anniversary of the murder of Airey Neave.

    We're lucky Adrian Elms didn't grow up in Belfast.
    One crucial vote was lost by Labour backbencher Sir Alfred Broughton who was unable to attend the vote due to ill health.[1] Broughton (professionally a doctor) was mortally ill and died a few days after the vote but was determined to come to Westminster if it meant saving the Government, although his own doctor was strongly opposed. Parliamentary procedure would have allowed his vote to be counted even if he remained within an ambulance at Speaker's Court. However, after a debate over what would happen if Broughton died en route, Callaghan finally decided that he would not risk Broughton's health by asking him to travel, a decision which was to bring down the Government.[2] Broughton died on 2 April 1979.
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Alistair, including EU nationals when we're leaving the EU would delegitimise it.

    So happy to scare them into voting no first time out but yank the carpet underneath them when they realise they have been gulled?
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Panorama on Sgt Blackman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7-JNYiZzKc
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
    Listening to his lawyer today, and in any case, it is for me the broader questions about our deployment that deserve greater scrutiny.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
    Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    rcs1000 said:

    chestnut said:

    Pre-negotiations with Gulf Cooperation Council on a Free Trade Deal.

    http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/28/03/2017/UK-and-Qatar-set-up-joint-committee-to-pave-way-for-post-Brexit-trade-deal-May

    The EU have failed for decades to broker a deal. This is already a £22bn export market for us, and we provide roughly a quarter of EU exports to the region.

    If I recall correctly (and I may not), there is already a co-operation agreement (which is like a precursor to an FTA) between the EU and the GCC, but not yet an FTA.
    Pre the EU taking over all these functions, we used to be quite keen on inward investment promotion protocols - or whatever the term was - in the region.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Alistair, I opposed EU nationals having a vote on Scottish independence the first time too.
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
    Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
    Japan was not a party to the Geneva Conventions, so they did not apply in that conflict. Hence the whole Bridge over the River Kwai thing with PoW slave labour.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Congrats.
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
  • Ishmael_Z
    Ishmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
    Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
    Saying either nothing at all, or "OMG he is reaching for a weapon" or some such (for the camera), would have saved a lot of trouble.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    You do realise that once A50 is triggered all monies due to UK nationals from EU entities, including private companies, must be paid into an escrow account to be released on the final signing of a trade deal.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,724
    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    Telegraph is a total clusterfuck by all accounts.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Congrats, Mr. T.
  • nunu
    nunu Posts: 6,024
    http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/295897/quantifying-the-trump-effect-qa-with-cambridge-a.html

    Cambridge Analytica has been in the news recently because of its astute use of big data to guide surprisingly successful political races, from Brexit to Donald Trump.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,724
    I see the government have announced ch4 to stay public but going to pressure them to move lots of jobs outside of London to mirror the bbc. Bonkers.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Congrats and hurrah for the single market. :lol:
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Oh, and sorry to hear about your friend, Mr. T.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    You do realise that once A50 is triggered all monies due to UK nationals from EU entities, including private companies, must be paid into an escrow account to be released on the final signing of a trade deal.
    Tres amusant.

    What I do know is that the slump in £ against the euro and dollar, caused by Brexit, has increased my already sizeable earnings by about 15%, overnight. A big fat hefty payrise. Thankyou, Leavers.
    Dough-ville your next place to visit in France?
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. T, well, they say money's like oxygen. Or sex. You only realise how important it is when you don't have enough.

    Must be especially difficult with children.
  • Mortimer
    Mortimer Posts: 14,229
    AndyJS said:

    Mortimer said:

    This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!



    *Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!

    Is that the place near the British Museum?
    That's the one! Hope to see you there.
  • Cyan
    Cyan Posts: 1,262
    On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...

    1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?

    2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".

    3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,

    4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés

    That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
  • Danny565
    Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2017
    SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum, akin to Irish nationalists and Home Rulers in times gone by.
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    edited March 2017
    Danny565 said:

    SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum.

    Is this a report or a thought?
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés

    That's not to say that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
    Nice quote. Wherefrom?
    Louis Pasteur. Had to go French, given the conversation.
  • Danny565
    Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    RobD said:

    Danny565 said:

    SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum.

    Is this a report or a though?
    My thought.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
    Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
    If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
  • HYUFD
    HYUFD Posts: 128,924
    Cyan said:

    On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...

    1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?

    2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".

    3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,

    4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.

    No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    Cyan said:

    On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...

    1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?

    2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".

    3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,

    4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.

    A DIY referendum would be meaningless. It would have no legal effect and would be ignored by Unionists.
  • Jonathan
    Jonathan Posts: 22,107
    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés

    That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
    Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.

    Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.

  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    HYUFD said:


    No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!

    Hm, I am not sure we need to get the army involved!
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    Sean_F said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
    Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
    If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
    Again, Japan was not a party to the Conventions, so they did not apply in that conflict to either party. The US soldiers in the Pacific conflict were not, could not be, in breach of the conventions.

    That said, there is plenty of evidence in the latter days on the Western front, there were multiple breaches meted out on captured SS and Gestapo. And Germany was a Party, so the Conventions did apply.
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    The chance of a DIY referendum must be close to nil. I don't know how close but pretty damn close.
  • HYUFD
    HYUFD Posts: 128,924
    edited March 2017
    Tim Farron promises that the LDs will call for the UK to rejoin the EU at the next general election 'on our terms.' He also says he has Guy Verhofstadt on speed dial and claims Churchill would have 'defected back' if he was still alive
    http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/libdem-leader-tim-farron-on-article-50-and-the-end-of-his-eu-dream-a3501111.html
  • HYUFD
    HYUFD Posts: 128,924
    edited March 2017
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:


    No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!

    Hm, I am not sure we need to get the army involved!
    Hopefully not but if Sturgeon declared UDI May would have no choice but to dissolve Holyrood, by force if necessary. Alternatively in Spain the president of the government of Catalonia was banned from public office for 2 years for holding an unofficial referendum by a court in Barcelona and also fined, the same penalty could be imposed on Sturgeon if she tries to call an unofficial referendum
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    Jonathan said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés

    That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
    Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.

    Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.

    Despite my generally conservative views on the size of government and matters economic, I am intrigued by and open to persuasion re the adoption of a national wage paid to everyone regardless of employment. I think it could be a real boost to the economy, letting people out of minimum jobs that underutilize their talents and ambition and facilitating greater entrepreneurial flair, or the creation of other forms of social value.

    It would be interesting if a medium sized country were to experiment with this so we could have some actual results to assess the theory on.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    MTimT said:

    Jonathan said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés

    That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
    Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.

    Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.

    Despite my generally conservative views on the size of government and matters economic, I am intrigued by and open to persuasion re the adoption of a national wage paid to everyone regardless of employment. I think it could be a real boost to the economy, letting people out of minimum jobs that underutilize their talents and ambition and facilitating greater entrepreneurial flair, or the creation of other forms of social value.

    It would be interesting if a medium sized country were to experiment with this so we could have some actual results to assess the theory on.
    Finland is
  • BigRich
    BigRich Posts: 3,492
    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum, akin to Irish nationalists and Home Rulers in times gone by.

    The problem with all this, for the SNP, is that most Scots voters don't want a vote, not yet.

    Sturgeon does not have a nation united behind her. A dangerous position from which to play constitutional poker.
    WRT The Scottish independence Vote could I propose:

    I referendum to mandate a 10 year wait (from last vote) till another Referendum. and then if Scottish parliament votes for a referendum in 2024 they get one, wither out the UK parliament needing to OK the timing ect...

    I think it may get brought support, wont be total support but I think would be large, and then the people of Scotland would have 5 years of Brexit Brittan to decide if they like it. we could even try to add it in to the Brexit negotiations that if Scotland votes to leave UK and Join EU in 2024 the EU promises to agree.
  • Theuniondivvie
    Theuniondivvie Posts: 44,327
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Alistair, I opposed EU nationals having a vote on Scottish independence the first time too.

    I can't remember you suggesting that the first vote was thus 'delegitimised'. Must have missed that.
  • GeoffM
    GeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    Cyan said:

    On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...

    1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?

    2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".

    3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,

    4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.

    No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!
    The Spanish also arrested the organisers. That would be funny!
    And politically dramatic, confrontational, constitutionally explosive etc etc.
    But mostly funny.
  • chestnut
    chestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Congrats. The money will still be there, whether in or out, if they like the work. A lesson for all.
    SeanT said:

    Danny565 said:

    SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum, akin to Irish nationalists and Home Rulers in times gone by.

    The problem with all this, for the SNP, is that most Scots voters don't want a vote, not yet.

    Sturgeon does not have a nation united behind her. A dangerous position from which to play constitutional poker.
    A referendum about a referendum is the compromise position. Ask the Scots in 2019 if they want another independence referendum post 2021 and make the result binding on the Holyrood 2021 administration.

    It makes May look reasonable, yet stops Sturgeon bouncing Scotland into another unwanted referendum.

    They voted to be British, and must respect their fellow Britons during the Brexit process.
  • Alanbrooke
    Alanbrooke Posts: 25,926
    SeanT said:

    Jonathan said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés

    That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
    Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.

    Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.

    Given the size of our deficit, and debt, our welfare state is about as well-funded as it can possibly be, without tipping the nation into bankruptcy.
    Look on the bright side, while all that foreign investment is flowing in to the UK, Scotland wont be getting much - so more for the rest of us,
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,723
    SeanT said:

    Sean_F said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam

    All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...

    I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.

    Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.

    Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
    Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
    If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
    The TV drama series Pacific underlined that. By the end - on Okinawa - civilian women were "surrending", rushing to the safety of the American lines - and then blowing themselves up to kill US soldiers.

    A pretty horrific choice. You see an Okinawan woman clutching a baby seeking safety in your trench. What do you do?
    Interestingly, on Okinawa, American soldiers risked their lives to save both civilians and Japanese POWs. In the latter case, they prevented the Japanese medical staff in a military hospital murdering their own (yes, Japanese injured soldiers!) - one of the reasons why a larger percentage of POWs was taken on Okinawa.
  • Jonathan
    Jonathan Posts: 22,107
    SeanT said:

    Jonathan said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    MTimT said:

    SeanT said:

    Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?

    This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.

    Felicitations, mon ami!
    Merci

    My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.

    Life is such a total lottery.
    le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés

    That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
    Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.

    Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.

    Given the size of our deficit, and debt, our welfare state is about as well-funded as it can possibly be, without tipping the nation into bankruptcy.
    It's a question of prioritisation and being smart. People need a safety net to take risks. At present the wealthy get to take the risks.

    A smart welfare state that unlocks entrepreneurial spirits has a lot to offer.
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:


    No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!

    Hm, I am not sure we need to get the army involved!
    Hopefully not but if Sturgeon declared UDI May would have no choice but to dissolve Holyrood, by force if necessary. Alternatively in Spain the president of the government of Catalonia was banned from public office for 2 years for holding an unofficial referendum by a court in Barcelona and also fined, the same penalty could be imposed on Sturgeon if she tries to call an unofficial referendum
    Will May do a Palpatine and order the council dissolved permanently and appoint regional governors to assume direct control? :p
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    Noted SNP sycophant (sarcasm) Farquarson on IndyRef2

    https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/846758048450433024
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Divvie, you're welcome to go and check the threads from 2012 or so to 2014. I probably wrote about 10,000 comments, but my average comment size is quite small :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories