politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who’ll finish fourth?
Comments
-
Depends on what moving in consists of. Possible, considered but based on Putin's relatively uncommitted support for his surrogate so far, not in the likely column yet.RightChuck said:YOkel - do you see any possibility of Russian security forces moving to protect the interests of Russians living in Eastern Ukraine?
0 -
Quincel The Greens are on about 7-8% in many polls a few points behind the LDs, they also now have an MP in Caroline Lucas and a council in Brighton. I would agree they would need to overtake the LDs in the Euros though to really gain momentum0
-
Yokel - thanks. I was assuming Putin would prefer some buffer between the EU and the Russian Federation - Belorus in the North and some part of Ukraine in the South. Would you see that as a fixed object of Russian policy?0
-
The musical tastes of the kind of people who vote in phone-in polls for musical TV shows (Eurovision, X-Factor, The Voice etc.) are pretty similar North and South of the border. The Hydro in Glasgow (13,000 capacity) is a regular on the big acts' tours now.Theuniondivvie said:
Er, I'm pretty sure he's intimately aware of what the Scots think of Sassenachs!Innocent_Abroad said:
NOA, you clearly have no idea what the Scots think of us Sassenachs. More to the point, if Scotland secedes from the UK, and kids itself that it can afford more generous welfare provisions (including pensions) than rUK, how long will it be before local elections in Cumbria and Tyneside start being won by a "Let's Join Scotland" party?
0 -
Here's Putins issue. He'd like that for sure but Russia, despite this perception of power, is much weaker under the surface. That that buffer or, less generously, an indirect Empire is hard enough to maintain tells you that the means to deliver the objectives are not quite what they seem. They could step in and effectively draw a line in the east but it might be tough if the Ukrainians or anyone else refuses to acquiesce.
At this stage the situation in the Ukraine is far from over as regards twists and turns. What happened was that the President couldn't hold the total sway over the necessary forces to get his way.0 -
We could settle on Janukowicz for the spelling, then. But surely that sort of background was not unusual in the Soviet Union or even in Czarist times - one of Stalin's marshals at Stalingrad was a Pole, can't remember his name offhand. According to Wikipedia, Yanukovych's paternal family were Lithuanian Poles, so had moved quite a long way.AveryLP said:
... Yanukovych is an interesting character in the Idi Amin tradition of world leaders...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Y0kel, cheers for that update. D'you reckon Yanukovic[sp] could end up fleeing?
He is not even Ukrainian and hardly speaks the language, He was born to a Russian Mother and his father was Belarussian/Polish (that part of the world suffered great population shifts post WWII)., his family and oligarchic henchmen. Think Ceausescu and Romania. But more likely he will grab the Moscow lifeline when thrown.
People keep talking about East v West, Orthodox v Catholic, Russian v Ukrainian, but I bet it's more complicated than that. Kiev was the great centre of east Slavic culture... but then most of Central and Western Ukraine became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until Khmelnitsky's uprising when Central Ukraine was independent as the Zaporizhian Cossack Host, until conquered by Catherine the Great in the C18. Kiev itself was Lithuanian and then Polish until the C17. Much of the West was Austrian until 1918 and Lviv was Polish until 1938, Transcarpathian Ruthenia was part of Czechoslovakia until WW2. Much of the south was the Crimean Khanate, ruled by Tatars and a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, again until the eightenth century.
And then you have Soviet rule and the Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Have never been there (would like to visit the Crimean battlefields sometime) so not sure what the reality is on the ground, but it sounds as if it is a bit more complex than the East v West dichotomy we are usually presented with.
0 -
Great - thanks. Love your posts. Very illuminating.Y0kel said:Here's Putins issue. He'd like that for sure but Russia, despite this perception of power, is much weaker under the surface. That that buffer or, less generously, an indirect Empire is hard enough to maintain tells you that the means to deliver the objectives are not quite what they seem. They could step in and effectively draw a line in the east but it might be tough if the Ukrainians or anyone else refuses to acquiesce.
At this stage the situation in the Ukraine is far from over as regards twists and turns. What happened was that the President couldn't hold the total sway over the necessary forces to get his way.0 -
Timoshenko is reportedly out.
The hope is that she as a figure will be able to cool heads on the opposition side. The street and their suited representatives have a bit of a gap between them at the moment.0 -
A little bit, but the basic East West split is a reasonable proxy. Essentially it's the old part of Mitteleuropa - the Polish, Lithuanian, Austrian bits, including Kiev vs the industrialised East that saw significant Russification under Stalin. The Khan of the Golden Horde and his grandson, the Prince of the Silver Tower, are lovely chaps - if a little odd (only child syndrome) - so you can ignore the Crimea except that has been pretty completely Russified over the yearsJohnLilburne said:
We could settle on Janukowicz for the spelling, then. But surely that sort of background was not unusual in the Soviet Union or even in Czarist times - one of Stalin's marshals at Stalingrad was a Pole, can't remember his name offhand. According to Wikipedia, Yanukovych's paternal family were Lithuanian Poles, so had moved quite a long way.AveryLP said:
... Yanukovych is an interesting character in the Idi Amin tradition of world leaders...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Y0kel, cheers for that update. D'you reckon Yanukovic[sp] could end up fleeing?
He is not even Ukrainian and hardly speaks the language, He was born to a Russian Mother and his father was Belarussian/Polish (that part of the world suffered great population shifts post WWII)., his family and oligarchic henchmen. Think Ceausescu and Romania. But more likely he will grab the Moscow lifeline when thrown.
People keep talking about East v West, Orthodox v Catholic, Russian v Ukrainian, but I bet it's more complicated than that. Kiev was the great centre of east Slavic culture... but then most of Central and Western Ukraine became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until Khmelnitsky's uprising when Central Ukraine was independent as the Zaporizhian Cossack Host, until conquered by Catherine the Great in the C18. Kiev itself was Lithuanian and then Polish until the C17. Much of the West was Austrian until 1918 and Lviv was Polish until 1938, Transcarpathian Ruthenia was part of Czechoslovakia until WW2. Much of the south was the Crimean Khanate, ruled by Tatars and a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, again until the eightenth century.
And then you have Soviet rule and the Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Have never been there (would like to visit the Crimean battlefields sometime) so not sure what the reality is on the ground, but it sounds as if it is a bit more complex than the East v West dichotomy we are usually presented with.
The more worrying element is that Kyiv is to the Rus what Pristina is to the Serbs: a city that has far more emotional and spiritual significance than anyone in the West can really appreciate. It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.0 -
I've put up some numbers on turnout at the locals and Europeans in 2009 if anyone's interested: http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/
Just over 48% of the European election vote in 2009 came from the councils which are having local elections this time.0 -
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
0 -
No , that is incorrect , the average Green % in all Euro polls so far is 5% and the best is 7% in 1 poll .HYUFD said:Quincel The Greens are on about 7-8% in many polls a few points behind the LDs, they also now have an MP in Caroline Lucas and a council in Brighton. I would agree they would need to overtake the LDs in the Euros though to really gain momentum
0 -
I have to admit I am fascinated by the different speeds at which history plays itself out. Alter all Scotland has been formally part of the UK since 1707 and informally so for a hundred years before (James I & VI called himself "King of Great Britain") and for the most part there is no linguistic problem - but is still apparently culturally enough different from England for a substantial proportion of Scots to want independence.Charles said:
A little bit, but the basic East West split is a reasonable proxy. Essentially it's the old part of Mitteleuropa - the Polish, Lithuanian, Austrian bits, including Kiev vs the industrialised East that saw significant Russification under Stalin. The Khan of the Golden Horde and his grandson, the Prince of the Silver Tower, are lovely chaps - if a little odd (only child syndrome) - so you can ignore the Crimea except that has been pretty completely Russified over the years
The more worrying element is that Kyiv is to the Rus what Pristina is to the Serbs: a city that has far more emotional and spiritual significance than anyone in the West can really appreciate. It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I would also wonder if the extreme east of the Ukraine has been Russian speaking since well before Stalin, as that bit was ruled by Muscovy when the rest was Polish/Lithuanian/Austrian/Cossacks etc.
Interestingly your friend the Khan is presumably a male line descendant of Ghengis Khan, although apparently a lot of us are, we just don't know it.
More seriously, hope it goes OK for the Ukrainians.
0 -
Sky, breaking
Janukowicz resigns, apparently...
Announcement to the protestors in the square.0 -
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
0 -
Tymoshenko still in prison, according to aide...0
-
Yes he is - his grandfather is the eldest child in the male line from Genghis Khan (believe the KotGH was Genghis's eldest?).JohnLilburne said:
I have to admit I am fascinated by the different speeds at which history plays itself out. Alter all Scotland has been formally part of the UK since 1707 and informally so for a hundred years before (James I & VI called himself "King of Great Britain") and for the most part there is no linguistic problem - but is still apparently culturally enough different from England for a substantial proportion of Scots to want independence.Charles said:
A little bit, but the basic East West split is a reasonable proxy. Essentially it's the old part of Mitteleuropa - the Polish, Lithuanian, Austrian bits, including Kiev vs the industrialised East that saw significant Russification under Stalin. The Khan of the Golden Horde and his grandson, the Prince of the Silver Tower, are lovely chaps - if a little odd (only child syndrome) - so you can ignore the Crimea except that has been pretty completely Russified over the years
The more worrying element is that Kyiv is to the Rus what Pristina is to the Serbs: a city that has far more emotional and spiritual significance than anyone in the West can really appreciate. It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I would also wonder if the extreme east of the Ukraine has been Russian speaking since well before Stalin, as that bit was ruled by Muscovy when the rest was Polish/Lithuanian/Austrian/Cossacks etc.
Interestingly your friend the Khan is presumably a male line descendant of Ghengis Khan, although apparently a lot of us are, we just don't know it.
More seriously, hope it goes OK for the Ukrainians.
They were the Kings of Crimea, admittedly under the sway of the Ottomans until the C18th (?) when they fled to Istanbul. He has the greatest car numberplate I've seen - XHM1 (think about it...). Apparently the Queen owns all of this range of numberplates and hands them out on lifetime loans as she sees fit (I think Constantine of Greece is XHM2, etc...)0 -
I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.0
-
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
0 -
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
0 -
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
0 -
Well, that's the theory... Similar to the theory that with two great military alliances, World War I could never happen. In the event we came closer than is comfortable during the Cold War, for some very stupid reasons. (Bears walking into fences, missile detection systems showing false positives, guy in Cuba not getting the memo about not shooting down spy planes, US launch codes all set to "0000"...)CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
Anyhow if you're a small country that doesn't particularly have a dog in this fight and a not massively strategic position, you're probably better off not hosting any weapons on behalf of either the protagonists.
PS. This is only if you actually believe the situation is going to escalate into something that could plausibly threaten Scotland, which doesn't seem very likely...0 -
Any scenarios on removal of nuclear deterrent that you'd care to share? Just so I know what to worry about, like.CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
0 -
England CricketVerified account@ECB_cricket
England under 19s have beaten India under 19s by 3 wickets in the quarter final of the ICC Under 19 World Cup! What a game!
Some good news for English cricket.
0 -
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...0 -
The SNP want to remove all nuclear weapons from Scotland if they win independence.Theuniondivvie said:
Any scenarios on removal of nuclear deterrent that you'd care to share? Just so I know what to worry about, like.CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-conference-support-for-nuclear-weapons-ban-1-28546860 -
Unless they are on a NATO ship, in which case, they're fine.CopperSulphate said:
The SNP want to remove all nuclear weapons from Scotland if they win independence.0 -
The leaders themselves were never threatened in the world wars. Bit harder to order a nuclear strike when you know you'll be copping it too when the retaliation arrives.edmundintokyo said:
Well, that's the theory... Similar to the theory that with two great military alliances, World War I could never happen. In the event we came closer than is comfortable during the Cold War, for some very stupid reasons. (Bears walking into fences, missile detection systems showing false positives, guy in Cuba not getting the memo about not shooting down spy planes, US launch codes all set to "0000"...)CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
Anyhow if you're a small country that doesn't particularly have a dog in this fight and a not massively strategic position, you're probably better off not hosting any weapons on behalf of either the protagonists.
PS. This is only if you actually believe the situation is going to escalate into something that could plausibly threaten Scotland, which doesn't seem very likely...
I don't think the situation in Ukraine is going to threaten Scotland in any way. I just thought it might remind people that the relatively peaceful times we've had since WW2 don't always last forever.0 -
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
0 -
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)0 -
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I'm voting Yes.CopperSulphate said:
The SNP want to remove all nuclear weapons from Scotland if they win independence.Theuniondivvie said:
Any scenarios on removal of nuclear deterrent that you'd care to share? Just so I know what to worry about, like.CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-conference-support-for-nuclear-weapons-ban-1-2854686
You said the 'worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed'. I just want know what you think might happen.0 -
I agree that getting UK embassies to brief against indy and having cozy chats with Putin and Rajoy about same is definitely an improvement on wars of suppression, not sure about any decrease in the childishness quotient though.Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)
0 -
American rebellion? The British use the term "American War of Independence" and the Americans use "the American Revolutionary War".Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)0 -
Both England and Scotland are mature democracies. There's no danger of war coming back unless that changes.CopperSulphate said:
The leaders themselves were never threatened in the world wars. Bit harder to order a nuclear strike when you know you'll be copping it too when the retaliation arrives.edmundintokyo said:
Well, that's the theory... Similar to the theory that with two great military alliances, World War I could never happen. In the event we came closer than is comfortable during the Cold War, for some very stupid reasons. (Bears walking into fences, missile detection systems showing false positives, guy in Cuba not getting the memo about not shooting down spy planes, US launch codes all set to "0000"...)CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
Anyhow if you're a small country that doesn't particularly have a dog in this fight and a not massively strategic position, you're probably better off not hosting any weapons on behalf of either the protagonists.
PS. This is only if you actually believe the situation is going to escalate into something that could plausibly threaten Scotland, which doesn't seem very likely...
I don't think the situation in Ukraine is going to threaten Scotland in any way. I just thought it might remind people that the relatively peaceful times we've had since WW2 don't always last forever.0 -
I've no idea, nor does anyone else. Sure things would probably be fine and it probably won't ever be needed. It's just an extra bit of insurance in case things don't plan out as you expect.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I'm voting Yes.CopperSulphate said:
The SNP want to remove all nuclear weapons from Scotland if they win independence.Theuniondivvie said:
Any scenarios on removal of nuclear deterrent that you'd care to share? Just so I know what to worry about, like.CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-conference-support-for-nuclear-weapons-ban-1-2854686
You said the 'worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed'. I just want know what you think might happen.0 -
Not having a dog in the fight? I would have thought every responsible country had a stake in a stable international order. However, it seems like most are happy to free ride off the US defence umbrella.edmundintokyo said:
Well, that's the theory... Similar to the theory that with two great military alliances, World War I could never happen. In the event we came closer than is comfortable during the Cold War, for some very stupid reasons. (Bears walking into fences, missile detection systems showing false positives, guy in Cuba not getting the memo about not shooting down spy planes, US launch codes all set to "0000"...)CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
Anyhow if you're a small country that doesn't particularly have a dog in this fight and a not massively strategic position, you're probably better off not hosting any weapons on behalf of either the protagonists.
PS. This is only if you actually believe the situation is going to escalate into something that could plausibly threaten Scotland, which doesn't seem very likely...0 -
Why? I'm sure it's a topic of interest to foreign leaders. It seems entirely sensible behaviour.Theuniondivvie said:
I agree that getting UK embassies to brief against indy and having cozy chats with Putin and Rajoy about same is definitely an improvement on wars of suppression, not sure about any decrease in the childishness quotient though.Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)0 -
But neither of those wind my wife as much...Socrates said:
American rebellion? The British use the term "American War of Independence" and the Americans use "the American Revolutionary War".Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)0 -
And the UK embassy briefings?Charles said:
Why? I'm sure it's a topic of interest to foreign leaders. It seems entirely sensible behaviour.Theuniondivvie said:
I agree that getting UK embassies to brief against indy and having cozy chats with Putin and Rajoy about same is definitely an improvement on wars of suppression, not sure about any decrease in the childishness quotient though.Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)
0 -
Exactly. If someone like Ron Paul ever gets in as President and says balls to the current US global military responsibilities then things could change very rapidly.Socrates said:
Not having a dog in the fight? I would have thought every responsible country had a stake in a stable international order. However, it seems like most are happy to free ride off the US defence umbrella.edmundintokyo said:
Well, that's the theory... Similar to the theory that with two great military alliances, World War I could never happen. In the event we came closer than is comfortable during the Cold War, for some very stupid reasons. (Bears walking into fences, missile detection systems showing false positives, guy in Cuba not getting the memo about not shooting down spy planes, US launch codes all set to "0000"...)CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
Anyhow if you're a small country that doesn't particularly have a dog in this fight and a not massively strategic position, you're probably better off not hosting any weapons on behalf of either the protagonists.
PS. This is only if you actually believe the situation is going to escalate into something that could plausibly threaten Scotland, which doesn't seem very likely...0 -
Timoshenko isn't in prison at the moment.0
-
I can't possibly see a Paulite getting into the White House. I suppose there's an outside chance of Rand getting the GOP nod, but he'll never beat the Democrat. And this is at one of those periods when Americans at their most isolationist, and these periods usually only last about 20 years.CopperSulphate said:
Exactly. If someone like Ron Paul ever gets in as President and says balls to the current US global military responsibilities then things could change very rapidly.Socrates said:
Not having a dog in the fight? I would have thought every responsible country had a stake in a stable international order. However, it seems like most are happy to free ride off the US defence umbrella.edmundintokyo said:
Well, that's the theory... Similar to the theory that with two great military alliances, World War I could never happen. In the event we came closer than is comfortable during the Cold War, for some very stupid reasons. (Bears walking into fences, missile detection systems showing false positives, guy in Cuba not getting the memo about not shooting down spy planes, US launch codes all set to "0000"...)CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
Anyhow if you're a small country that doesn't particularly have a dog in this fight and a not massively strategic position, you're probably better off not hosting any weapons on behalf of either the protagonists.
PS. This is only if you actually believe the situation is going to escalate into something that could plausibly threaten Scotland, which doesn't seem very likely...0 -
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?Theuniondivvie said:
And the UK embassy briefings?Charles said:
Why? I'm sure it's a topic of interest to foreign leaders. It seems entirely sensible behaviour.Theuniondivvie said:
I agree that getting UK embassies to brief against indy and having cozy chats with Putin and Rajoy about same is definitely an improvement on wars of suppression, not sure about any decrease in the childishness quotient though.Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)0 -
When they negotiated the 1707 union, the Scots insisted on preserving the Kirk and the Scottish education system, as they thought that would be enough to preserve a separate Scots identity. It looks like they were right.JohnLilburne said:
I have to admit I am fascinated by the different speeds at which history plays itself out. Alter all Scotland has been formally part of the UK since 1707 and informally so for a hundred years before (James I & VI called himself "King of Great Britain") and for the most part there is no linguistic problem - but is still apparently culturally enough different from England for a substantial proportion of Scots to want independence.Charles said:
A little bit, but the basic East West split is a reasonable proxy. Essentially it's the old part of Mitteleuropa - the Polish, Lithuanian, Austrian bits, including Kiev vs the industrialised East that saw significant Russification under Stalin. The Khan of the Golden Horde and his grandson, the Prince of the Silver Tower, are lovely chaps - if a little odd (only child syndrome) - so you can ignore the Crimea except that has been pretty completely Russified over the years
The more worrying element is that Kyiv is to the Rus what Pristina is to the Serbs: a city that has far more emotional and spiritual significance than anyone in the West can really appreciate. It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I would also wonder if the extreme east of the Ukraine has been Russian speaking since well before Stalin, as that bit was ruled by Muscovy when the rest was Polish/Lithuanian/Austrian/Cossacks etc.
Interestingly your friend the Khan is presumably a male line descendant of Ghengis Khan, although apparently a lot of us are, we just don't know it.
More seriously, hope it goes OK for the Ukrainians.
As for this descendant of Ghenghis thing, it's very much overplayed. If you go back to the 12th century, there would be more mathematical ancestors of each of us than the world's population, so many of the men alive at the time would have genes in the bulk of the Eurasian population.
0 -
The tanks are coming!
After lights out in Sochi, the serious fighting will begin:
Ukraine president decries 'coup'
Breaking news
Ukraine President Yanukovych refuses to quit, describes Kiev events as a "coup
0 -
'As I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.'Charles said:
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?0 -
Don't forget the law, too (presumably including therefore much of the administrative structure).Socrates said:
When they negotiated the 1707 union, the Scots insisted on preserving the Kirk and the Scottish education system, as they thought that would be enough to preserve a separate Scots identity. It looks like they were right.JohnLilburne said:
I have to admit I am fascinated by the different speeds at which history plays itself out. Alter all Scotland has been formally part of the UK since 1707 and informally so for a hundred years before (James I & VI called himself "King of Great Britain") and for the most part there is no linguistic problem - but is still apparently culturally enough different from England for a substantial proportion of Scots to want independence.Charles said:
A little bit, but the basic East West split is a reasonable proxy. Essentially it's the old part of Mitteleuropa - the Polish, Lithuanian, Austrian bits, including Kiev vs the industrialised East that saw significant Russification under Stalin. The Khan of the Golden Horde and his grandson, the Prince of the Silver Tower, are lovely chaps - if a little odd (only child syndrome) - so you can ignore the Crimea except that has been pretty completely Russified over the years
The more worrying element is that Kyiv is to the Rus what Pristina is to the Serbs: a city that has far more emotional and spiritual significance than anyone in the West can really appreciate. It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I would also wonder if the extreme east of the Ukraine has been Russian speaking since well before Stalin, as that bit was ruled by Muscovy when the rest was Polish/Lithuanian/Austrian/Cossacks etc.
Interestingly your friend the Khan is presumably a male line descendant of Ghengis Khan, although apparently a lot of us are, we just don't know it.
More seriously, hope it goes OK for the Ukrainians.
As for this descendant of Ghenghis thing, it's very much overplayed. If you go back to the 12th century, there would be more mathematical ancestors of each of us than the world's population, so many of the men alive at the time would have genes in the bulk of the Eurasian population.
0 -
Interesting that whenever UKIP are talked of in terms of these elections the first thing opponents mention is how their 2009 vote was inflated by those angry and protesting at the expenses scandal. Would that not be the case for the Libdems (to a lesser extent), Greens and other minor parties as well? Yet there is not a mention of it.
Now its pretty clear that this election will be fully focussed on our relationship with Brussels with the three main players being Labour (In) Tory (Fence Sitting) UKIP (Out) and the rest nowhere and in all likelihood all the rest of the parties will be squeezed (hence Clegg's belated attempt to stay in the EU spotlight with his UKIP challenge).
Consequently, I think who comes fourth becomes a question of core vote and which of the smaller parties has the biggest core vote and how is it distributed across the country. The Libdems almost certainly have the biggest core vote and as a result will likely come fourth in total votes. How large that vote will be and how many seats they will retain is anyone's guess.though.0 -
The Great American Treason.Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)0 -
http://wingsoverscotland.com/nation-speaking-tunes-unto-nation/
Just as well nobody on this site took the Daily Mail indy scare du jour seriously (somewhat to my surprise, knowing some of the denizens here) - it had already been pre-empted by the Daily Mash ...0 -
You say they 'now have' an MP and council, but they were both won at or before 2010. I'd be inclined to say that they won't 'really gain momentum' if they get another win, but restart their momentum. How can a party which has exceeded expectations not once in 3 years be said to be in any position but stagnating/stable?HYUFD said:Quincel The Greens are on about 7-8% in many polls a few points behind the LDs, they also now have an MP in Caroline Lucas and a council in Brighton. I would agree they would need to overtake the LDs in the Euros though to really gain momentum
0 -
It is up to those in Scotland to make the decision. That does not mean that the rest of the UK, Europe, and indeed the rest of the world, cannot give their opinion on the possibility. And just giving an opinion, view, or even saying anything, may influence some people, one way or the other.Theuniondivvie said:
'As I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.'Charles said:
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?
And as it will effect the rest of the UK, then those of us in the UK have a right to say what we want. We can't interfere with the vote, but was sure as heck can give our view.
Some Scottish Nationalists seem to want to shriek everyone else down until there are only the pro-indy voices left. Note the hysteria against the Economist just this morning.
If the voice of an independent Scotland is going to be like that, then it does not bode well for independence.0 -
My own view is that if you're part of a nuclear-armed alliance, it makes little difference whether you have nuclear weapons permanently stationed on your own territory.edmundintokyo said:
Well, that's the theory... Similar to the theory that with two great military alliances, World War I could never happen. In the event we came closer than is comfortable during the Cold War, for some very stupid reasons. (Bears walking into fences, missile detection systems showing false positives, guy in Cuba not getting the memo about not shooting down spy planes, US launch codes all set to "0000"...)CopperSulphate said:
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that you don't need to use them. The worry would be about what happens when that deterrent is removed.edmundintokyo said:
If you're scared about that kind of thing you probably don't want to be in the place where the nuclear weapons are actually based, especially if there's a suspicion that the central government doesn't actually care about you that much...CopperSulphate said:I wonder if the events in Ukraine might add a point or two to the no vote in Scotland. The idea of going it alone and removing the nuclear deterrent doesn't look so appealing when parts of Europe look like they're descending into civil war.
Anyhow if you're a small country that doesn't particularly have a dog in this fight and a not massively strategic position, you're probably better off not hosting any weapons on behalf of either the protagonists.
PS. This is only if you actually believe the situation is going to escalate into something that could plausibly threaten Scotland, which doesn't seem very likely...
0 -
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!0 -
Scotland NAP for wooden spoon in 6 nations.0
-
Who said anything about people not being allowed to voice their opinion? By the same token, if that opinion is based on misinformed, biased guff it can expect to have the pish ripped out of it, and if Cameron hypocritically uses HMT and UK embassies to spread FUD, he can also expect a 'robust' response.JosiasJessop said:
It is up to those in Scotland to make the decision. That does not mean that the rest of the UK, Europe, and indeed the rest of the world, cannot give their opinion on the possibility. And just giving an opinion, view, or even saying anything, may influence some people, one way or the other.Theuniondivvie said:
'As I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.'Charles said:
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?
And as it will effect the rest of the UK, then those of us in the UK have a right to say what we want. We can't interfere with the vote, but was sure as heck can give our view.
Some Scottish Nationalists seem to want to shriek everyone else down until there are only the pro-indy voices left. Note the hysteria against the Economist just this morning.
If the voice of an independent Scotland is going to be like that, then it does not bode well for independence.
No idea what the Economist hysteria is that that you're referring to.
That 'it does not bode well for independence' line is a good one. Is it the 43rd time you've used it?
0 -
A sound analysis but the real problem Ukraine faces is that it has no high value energy resources, a heavy industrial sector that produces nothing the West want to buy, nearly fifty million mouths to feed and an agrarian economy - the 'breadbasket of Europe' - which was destroyed under Stalin.JohnLilburne said:
We could settle on Janukowicz for the spelling, then. But surely that sort of background was not unusual in the Soviet Union or even in Czarist times - one of Stalin's marshals at Stalingrad was a Pole, can't remember his name offhand. According to Wikipedia, Yanukovych's paternal family were Lithuanian Poles, so had moved quite a long way.AveryLP said:
...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Y0kel, cheers for that update. D'you reckon Yanukovic[sp] could end up fleeing?
People keep talking about East v West, Orthodox v Catholic, Russian v Ukrainian, but I bet it's more complicated than that. Kiev was the great centre of east Slavic culture... but then most of Central and Western Ukraine became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until Khmelnitsky's uprising when Central Ukraine was independent as the Zaporizhian Cossack Host, until conquered by Catherine the Great in the C18. Kiev itself was Lithuanian and then Polish until the C17. Much of the West was Austrian until 1918 and Lviv was Polish until 1938, Transcarpathian Ruthenia was part of Czechoslovakia until WW2. Much of the south was the Crimean Khanate, ruled by Tatars and a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, again until the eightenth century.
And then you have Soviet rule and the Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Have never been there (would like to visit the Crimean battlefields sometime) so not sure what the reality is on the ground, but it sounds as if it is a bit more complex than the East v West dichotomy we are usually presented with.
The country is entirely dependent on Russia for its energy supplies and its industry only has markets to the East. And the factories are located in the Russian populated and administered regions.
If the Ukraine had the same balance of payments surplus enjoyed by Russia there would be little ethnic strife or need for revolution.
The attraction of the agrarian East to the EU is as an alternative saviour to Russia, but there is no Germany to unite an artificially divided country and no will within the EU.
Any solution has to lie in co-operation with Moscow and this applies not just to Ukraine but to the EU and NATO too.
I personally have absolutely no doubts that, if pushed, Russia will use its military to maintain its regional interests, perhaps, in extremis, by occupying the Russian speaking West and turning off the energy to the East.
P.S. Sorry for the late reply. Have not been at the keyboard.
P.P.S. The Januk of Janukovych is a Slavic form of John!
0 -
0
-
The Greens should achieve 8% or so in the Euros. I reckon they should also poll well in London's local elections. Their vote was swamped in 2010, when lots of Labour voters, who wouldn't vote in stand-alone local elections, came out to vote in the General Election. They lost all but two council seats. This time, they should pick up 20 or so, and probably win about 10 % of the vote in London's local elections.OldKingCole said:
What do Left and Right mean nowadays?HYUFD said:It is not impossible that UKIP could beat the Tories as the main rightwing party in the Euros while the Greens overtake the LDs and cement their position as the new leftwing protest party, with Labour winning the poll on the centre-left it would mean the Tories and LDs are now seen as indivisible as part of the Coalition, both on the centre/centre right
Just asking, as I don't see the Greens as obviously socialist/collectivist.
Or, come to that, revolutionary.0 -
Haven't got the article, but the little snippet they allow you to see seems both fair and unfair. If things are divided up according to population, then Scotland should get around 8-10% of all the national artworks. I guess that many relating to Scotland would already be in the National Gallery of Scotland, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and provincial Scottish galleries, but are they *owned* by those galleries?Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!
If Scotland has more than 10% of the artworks, then they the rest of the UK should get some. If Scotland has less, then they should get some from the UK. But 10% of what? Quantity? Value?
There might be problems with bequests, where items might have been given to a certain gallery or even country. I'm a firm believer that deeds of gifts for bequest should be stuck to for perpetuity and not ripped up after a few decades.
There'll be a great deal of horsetrading. It might be best if some maturity struck, and even if the ownership status changed, that there would be frequent swapsies for exhibitions.0 -
Carnyx said:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon0 -
There are two of them, they were almost jointly paid for, why not have one each?Scott_P said:Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon
0 -
That works both ways. If some Scottish Nationalist opinions are based on misinformed, biased guff then it too can expect to have the pish ripped out of it.Theuniondivvie said:
Who said anything about people not being allowed to voice their opinion? By the same token, if that opinion is based on misinformed, biased guff it can expect to have the pish ripped out of it, and if Cameron hypocritically uses HMT and UK embassies to spread FUD, he can also expect a 'robust' response.JosiasJessop said:
It is up to those in Scotland to make the decision. That does not mean that the rest of the UK, Europe, and indeed the rest of the world, cannot give their opinion on the possibility. And just giving an opinion, view, or even saying anything, may influence some people, one way or the other.Theuniondivvie said:
'As I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.'Charles said:
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?
And as it will effect the rest of the UK, then those of us in the UK have a right to say what we want. We can't interfere with the vote, but was sure as heck can give our view.
Some Scottish Nationalists seem to want to shriek everyone else down until there are only the pro-indy voices left. Note the hysteria against the Economist just this morning.
If the voice of an independent Scotland is going to be like that, then it does not bode well for independence.
No idea what the Economist hysteria is that that you're referring to.
That 'it does not bode well for independence' line is a good one. Is it the 43rd time you've used it?
There's stupidity on both sides. What I want is for our countries to be friends when this is all over. And some of the rhetoric is heading in totally the opposite direction.
And I doubt I've said 'it does not bode well for independence' or the equivalent half a dozen times, yet alone 43. I generally try to keep out of the Scottish debate as I truly love Scotland, and the debate sadly generates more heat than light.0 -
0
-
Thank you for the information. You have a lot of Mosaic data on your blog; is that freely available or have you a private source?Rosebud said:I've put up some numbers on turnout at the locals and Europeans in 2009 if anyone's interested: http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/
Just over 48% of the European election vote in 2009 came from the councils which are having local elections this time.0 -
There are two of them, they were almost jointly paid for, why not have one each?RobD said:Scott_P said:Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon
"As a result, Diana and Actaeon will remain on display in the UK, and will alternate between the two galleries on five-year terms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Actaeon_(Titian)
Why not put ownership of both into a trust fund, and split the ownership of that trust fund by the respective amounts each country paid, but with a board of (say) five non-political art establishment worthy representatives of each country, and the Queen acting as the casting vote?
;-)
In the meantime, continue the alternating display process.0 -
"As a result, Diana and Actaeon will remain on display in the UK, and will alternate between the two galleries on five-year terms."JosiasJessop said:
There are two of them, they were almost jointly paid for, why not have one each?RobD said:Scott_P said:Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Actaeon_(Titian)
Why not put ownership of both into a trust fund, and split the ownership of that trust fund by the respective amounts each country paid, but with a board of (say) five non-political art establishment worthy representatives of each country, and the Queen acting as the casting vote?
;-)
In the meantime, continue the alternating display process.
Sounds like an awful waste of money for a couple of paintings. One each would do the job nicely. Although saying that I now think you were being sarcastic.
0 -
There are two of them, they were almost jointly paid for, why not have one each?RobD said:Scott_P said:Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon
Why not let the the Scots keep the frames and give rUK the paintings.
I can't see an independent Scotland under Salmond being a neo-classical renaissance state. Far more likely to be post-modern.
We could offer Eck a few Tracey Emin beds if he thought my proposal didn't represent value exchange.0 -
I would argue that the Civil Service shouldn't be used for matters of current political controversy - in fact I think HM Government should be formally neutral as to whether Scotland remains a part of it or not. Of course politicians will campaign one way or t'other - we accept the Prime Minister doing Leader of the Conservative Party stuff when he is "on duty" - but Embassy briefings seems to be a stage too far.Charles said:
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?Theuniondivvie said:
And the UK embassy briefings?Charles said:
Why? I'm sure it's a topic of interest to foreign leaders. It seems entirely sensible behaviour.Theuniondivvie said:
I agree that getting UK embassies to brief against indy and having cozy chats with Putin and Rajoy about same is definitely an improvement on wars of suppression, not sure about any decrease in the childishness quotient though.Charles said:
I think the world has moved on a bit since then...Theuniondivvie said:
It was more about precision of language. If you think the American War of Independence revolved around a fit of Hanoverian and British childishness, fair enough.Charles said:
How else would you describe the desire of the Serbs to impose their authority over Kosovo after the residents had voted for independence? [I'm referring to the desire rather than the action - it's equivalent to 'mine. won't share']Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if I'd describe going to war to stop a country declaring its independence as 'childish', or state that England (or Scotland or any other country) is notably grown up.Charles said:
Something like that, possibly, but I doubt we'd go to war to stop the Scots proclaiming their independence. May be the English are just too grown up for childish thingsTheuniondivvie said:
Edinburgh?Charles said:It's difficult to think of a British equivalent that we would hate being under foreign rule - perhaps Calais in the 16th century, but can't think of anything more modern than that.
I'm confident that if the Scots vote for independence there will be a tough negotiation over terms, but there are unlikely to be tanks in Princes Street. Happy to bet on it if you want to frame terms...
(anyway, it's the American Rebellion)
0 -
PCS Union (c.30,000) workers votes for neutral position on referendum.
Yes: 5775. Neutrality: 18025. Not one branch voted for No.
0 -
Sweet drop goal.0
-
Sounds like an awful waste of money for a couple of paintings. One each would do the job nicely. Although saying that I now think you were being sarcastic.RobD said:
"As a result, Diana and Actaeon will remain on display in the UK, and will alternate between the two galleries on five-year terms."JosiasJessop said:
There are two of them, they were almost jointly paid for, why not have one each?RobD said:Scott_P said:Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Actaeon_(Titian)
Why not put ownership of both into a trust fund, and split the ownership of that trust fund by the respective amounts each country paid, but with a board of (say) five non-political art establishment worthy representatives of each country, and the Queen acting as the casting vote?
;-)
In the meantime, continue the alternating display process.
Nope, not being sarcastic. They're worth around £300 million. There will be other artworks that will be in the same situation, and which could be managed in the same manner by the same group.
"These paintings belong together – they were painted as a pair – and both illustrate stories from Ovid's Metamorphoses about the goddess Diana."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/28/art.museums10 -
There are different versions and demographic groups depending on the release date, etc.. Generally the low-level stuff is not available publicly. If there is data available it's generally at the wrong level of geography to make sense. What's not available is this data at parliamentary constituency level data. I have constructed these myself.....over many hours.Verulamius said:
Thank you for the information. You have a lot of Mosaic data on your blog; is that freely available or have you a private source?Rosebud said:I've put up some numbers on turnout at the locals and Europeans in 2009 if anyone's interested: http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/
Just over 48% of the European election vote in 2009 came from the councils which are having local elections this time.0 -
Don't know who said that, but I absolutely agree.Theuniondivvie said:
'As I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.'Charles said:
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?
It is a decision that is entirely up to those in Scotland. But others are entirely at liberty to try to persuade them one way or the other.0 -
My mum's family is from Nashville... but my Dad's financed both sides ;-)Socrates said:
I don't think anyone could credibly make the case that it was unsuccessful, as the term "rebellion" implies. "American rebellion" would seem to make more sense to describe the War of Southern Treason.Charles said:
But neither of those wind my wife as much...0 -
Good afternoon, my fellow north Britons.
Rather exciting finish to the game in Rome. Must admit to being surprised Scotland won. Cracking final kick.0 -
Sounds like an awful waste of money for a couple of paintings. One each would do the job nicely. Although saying that I now think you were being sarcastic.RobD said:
"As a result, Diana and Actaeon will remain on display in the UK, and will alternate between the two galleries on five-year terms."JosiasJessop said:
There are two of them, they were almost jointly paid for, why not have one each?RobD said:Scott_P said:Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_and_Actaeon_(Titian)
Why not put ownership of both into a trust fund, and split the ownership of that trust fund by the respective amounts each country paid, but with a board of (say) five non-political art establishment worthy representatives of each country, and the Queen acting as the casting vote?
;-)
In the meantime, continue the alternating display process.
We nned the judgement of Solomon here . Saw both paintings into 2 halves and each museum can display half of each painting .
0 -
Charles said:
Don't know who said that, but I absolutely agree.Theuniondivvie said:
'As I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.'Charles said:
Don't know the content of the briefings, but seems entirely reasonable. The UK doesn't want Scotland to declare independence so they will try to influence the decision that the Scottish voters make. Why wouldn't they use their advantages to swing the balance?
It is a decision that is entirely up to those in Scotland. But others are entirely at liberty to try to persuade them one way or the other.
It was Dave's lovebomb.
'Well Vladimir & Mariano, now you've given your distinct insights into the matter, I'll definitely have another wee think about it.'
0 -
There are two of them, they were almost jointly paid for, why not have one each?RobD said:Scott_P said:Carnyx said:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/visualarts/article4012956.ece
And the scare du hier - complete with what looks as if it is being spun as the usual barefaced (and bare-rumped) proposal to rob the Scots of their share. Anyone with a sub that can tell us more?
Hey, DT: you'll love this scare: lots of naked female flesh and no Ultimos!!Nicholas Penny singled out two jointly owned Titian masterpieces, saying there “must be conversations” about where they are displayed in the event of a “yes” vote in this year’s referendum.
The companion works Diana and Actaeon and Diana and Callisto were purchased for a total of £95 million
The National Gallery in London contributed £32.5 million towards the purchase of the two paintings, while the National Gallery of Scotland paid £4.6 million towards Diana and Actaeon and solicited donations for the other work. The Scottish government provided an additional £12.5 million for Diana and Actaeon
Because the whole point of the deal was to keep them together!
The NG and the NGS already have a deal as to how the art works will be shared, so why should independence change that?0 -
Actually, we need to take after the Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies, and just make so many copies that we don't know which is the real one. That way we can both claim to have the original on display.MarkSenior said:
We nned the judgement of Solomon here . Saw both paintings into 2 halves and each museum can display half of each painting .
0 -
Ukrainian Parliament votes to dismiss Yanukovych by 328 out of 340 votes...
Lavrov describes protesters as "armed extremists" who pose direct threat to Ukraine's sovereignty.0 -
Zero people voted no?Theuniondivvie said:PCS Union (c.30,000) workers votes for neutral position on referendum.
Yes: 5775. Neutrality: 18025. Not one branch voted for No.0 -
F1: second test's over. The third is from 27 February to 2 March. Importantly, the end of February is the cut-off point for altering power units. However, changes can be made after this date in the name of reliability or safety.0
-
Thank you; that would be a significant piece of work. I would be interested in how the mosaic data impacts the other parties, as well as UKIP and Labour, particularly in the key marginals.Rosebud said:
There are different versions and demographic groups depending on the release date, etc.. Generally the low-level stuff is not available publicly. If there is data available it's generally at the wrong level of geography to make sense. What's not available is this data at parliamentary constituency level data. I have constructed these myself.....over many hours.Verulamius said:
Thank you for the information. You have a lot of Mosaic data on your blog; is that freely available or have you a private source?Rosebud said:I've put up some numbers on turnout at the locals and Europeans in 2009 if anyone's interested: http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/
Just over 48% of the European election vote in 2009 came from the councils which are having local elections this time.0 -
Thanks to Mr P for looking the Times piece up.JosiasJessop said:
[Re paintings]
Nope, not being sarcastic. They're worth around £300 million. There will be other artworks that will be in the same situation, and which could be managed in the same manner by the same group.
"These paintings belong together – they were painted as a pair – and both illustrate stories from Ovid's Metamorphoses about the goddess Diana."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/28/art.museums1
I don't think there are that many artworks etc split between galleries or museums - virtually all will fall clearly to one institution and therefore at least initially udner one government or the other (galleries and museums being devolved). But as you say some such agreement will be needed for the exceptions.
Dr Penney was talking about exhibitions, rather than ownership, but it is still puzzling as the current arrangement seems perfectly clear and sensible (the conservation risk of moving the things aside). I can imagine that he wants to keep his options open - if indy happens they will quite rightly, need to check that there is no inadvertent hiccup with the legal and insurance etc bumf. However, the wording is still odd, and I suspect he has been quoted slightly out of context. Maybe we will learn more.
0 -
I have that data, and will be posting 'some' of it on my blog. Keep an eye on the blog, and if there are certain seats you are interested in I can include them in a post/analysis.Verulamius said:
Thank you; that would be a significant piece of work. I would be interested in how the mosaic data impacts the other parties, as well as UKIP and Labour, particularly in the key marginals.Rosebud said:
There are different versions and demographic groups depending on the release date, etc.. Generally the low-level stuff is not available publicly. If there is data available it's generally at the wrong level of geography to make sense. What's not available is this data at parliamentary constituency level data. I have constructed these myself.....over many hours.Verulamius said:
Thank you for the information. You have a lot of Mosaic data on your blog; is that freely available or have you a private source?Rosebud said:I've put up some numbers on turnout at the locals and Europeans in 2009 if anyone's interested: http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/
Just over 48% of the European election vote in 2009 came from the councils which are having local elections this time.0 -
It was apparently tactical voting to prevent Yes winning. If so it still means No had the lowest support of 3 options.RobD said:
Zero people voted no?Theuniondivvie said:PCS Union (c.30,000) workers votes for neutral position on referendum.
Yes: 5775. Neutrality: 18025. Not one branch voted for No.
0 -
England's backs look lively.0
-
"Fourth is, according to Olympic pundits, the cruellest finishing position. I don’t buy it. Who’d rather finish fifth or sixth than fourth, or, looking at it the other way, who enters a competition to finish third? Higher is better, first is best and last is worst."
Herdson. I think you need to study a bit more psychology and game theory. For most people, silver is worse than bronze because of the 'if only factor'. In the US professional sports, dead last is a lot better than a little off the floor because of the rewards of future first round draft picks. Where best to place, either from a psychological or a rewards basis, is highly contextual and there is no one size fits all answer. In politics, winning most seats is generally better than winning most votes, although even then there are some elections it is good to lose - depending on your investment horizon.0 -
Ha! Finally, this site is allowing me to post from Safari again.0
-
Not necessarily, it only means they thought they had the lowest support.Theuniondivvie said:
It was apparently tactical voting to prevent Yes winning. If so it still means No had the lowest support of 3 options.RobD said:
Zero people voted no?Theuniondivvie said:PCS Union (c.30,000) workers votes for neutral position on referendum.
Yes: 5775. Neutrality: 18025. Not one branch voted for No.
0 -
Excellent game of rugby involving Scotland (and I have not been able to say that for more than a year) with a really exciting finish, almost Wilkinsonesque.
The Italians had much the better of the first half but really dropped off in the second giving the Scots better opportunities to run with the ball which they frequently did, hardly dropping it at all.
Still don't fancy our chances against Wales (certainly not if they play like last night) or France (even if they play like last night) though. Of the 2 France is probably the better chance but still very much odds against.
0 -
My main interest is St Albans, as you could guess from my username, but also interested in Cambridge, Bedford & Watford.Rosebud said:
I have that data, and will be posting 'some' of it on my blog. Keep an eye on the blog, and if there are certain seats you are interested in I can include them in a post/analysis.Verulamius said:
Thank you; that would be a significant piece of work. I would be interested in how the mosaic data impacts the other parties, as well as UKIP and Labour, particularly in the key marginals.Rosebud said:
There are different versions and demographic groups depending on the release date, etc.. Generally the low-level stuff is not available publicly. If there is data available it's generally at the wrong level of geography to make sense. What's not available is this data at parliamentary constituency level data. I have constructed these myself.....over many hours.Verulamius said:
Thank you for the information. You have a lot of Mosaic data on your blog; is that freely available or have you a private source?Rosebud said:I've put up some numbers on turnout at the locals and Europeans in 2009 if anyone's interested: http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/
Just over 48% of the European election vote in 2009 came from the councils which are having local elections this time.0 -
Sky: Tymoshenko released, declaring "dictatorship has fallen..."0
-
The Scottish team selection has been bizarre.DavidL said:Excellent game of rugby involving Scotland (and I have not been able to say that for more than a year) with a really exciting finish, almost Wilkinsonesque.
The Italians had much the better of the first half but really dropped off in the second giving the Scots better opportunities to run with the ball which they frequently did, hardly dropping it at all.
Still don't fancy our chances against Wales (certainly not if they play like last night) or France (even if they play like last night) though. Of the 2 France is probably the better chance but still very much odds against.
Denton's been their best player through the first two games and put on the bench today? (They improved when he came on). Richie Gray out then in, Kelly Brown in then out.
Seems like Scott Johnson's just throwing names at a well rather than picking with a plan.0 -
It'd certainly be a first for No-ers to admit they had a chance of losing.RobD said:
Not necessarily, it only means they thought they had the lowest support. 0 -
Well its the same reason as to why devo max wasn't on the referendum, surely?Theuniondivvie said:
It'd certainly be a first for No-ers to admit they had a chance of losing.RobD said:
Not necessarily, it only means they thought they had the lowest support.0 -
That is a very encouraging result. We are starting to see some interesting and unexpected developments within the Scottish trade union movement, and within the wider Scottish left. It bodes well for our country and for her workers.Theuniondivvie said:PCS Union (c.30,000) workers votes for neutral position on referendum.
Yes: 5775. Neutrality: 18025. Not one branch voted for No.0 -
Greetings from The Chieftan pub in San Francisco. I am surrounded by Irishmen watching, once again, England struggle to score from five yards out. It's very frustrating, but we're too easy to defend against.0
