New US poll finds that if Trump decides to set up a new party 64% of Republicans would back it – pol

Flatlander said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Scott_xP said:

TAKE BACK CONTROL...

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1357796138481377280

EU being shellfish to take back control

I reckon they will cockle it up...

The EU will clam the borders shut.

Seriously though, I'm not totally convinced by a lot of the shellfish industry. I don't think scallop dredging wouldn't be allowed if it took place in full view.

Farmed mussels and oysters are good though. Ropegrown mussels are much less gritty.

When I lived in NZ they had fresh live mussels in the supermarket at NZ$ 3 per kilo. Not hard to cook, but did need to rinse them well because of grit, and pulling the beards off was tedious. Bit of onion, white wine, cream and fresh baguette. Lovely.

IshmaelZ said:

Charles said:

turbotubbs said:

Charles said:

Malmesbury said:

From the last thread. Christopher Plumber in one of his greatest roles

https://youtu.be/3DcWJrzK0wU?t=2305

[referring to the English troops]
Duchess of Richmond: They're the salt of England, Arthur.
Duke of Wellington: Scum. Nothing but beggars and scoundrels, all of them. Gin is the spirit of their patriotism.
Duchess of Richmond: Yet you expect them to die for you?
Duke of Wellington: Um-hum.
Duchess of Richmond: Out of duty?
Duke of Wellington: Um-hum.
Duchess of Richmond: I doubt if even Bonaparte could draw men to him by duty.
Duke of Wellington: Oh, Boney's not a gentleman.
Duchess of Richmond: Arthur! What an Englishman you are.
Duke of Wellington: On the field of battle his hat is worth fifty thousand men; but he is not a gentleman.

Arthur, of course, being Irish

Nonsense. As the great man said, being born in a stable, does not make one a horse...

Your brother being a member of the Irish peerage could be considered a leading indicator however

All sorts of people got Irish peerages. Here's a bloke from Nottingham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Smith,_1st_Baron_Carrington

Although Mornington is in Co Meath so not sure what your point is

Scott_xP said:

TAKE BACK CONTROL...

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1357796138481377280

The exclusion as I understand it is for raw - that is "uncleaned" - shellfish, and that the previous chain is to export uncleaned, then 'purified' in France/Spain typically. "Purify" involves a cleaning-in-water process - analogous to the way some river or lake fish eg trout are kept in water to remove the muddy taste.

Purified shellfish can be imported to EU, or those from waters which meet purity standards.

That's two possible routes, one of which involves value-adding in UK, but I do not know about the practicalities, as I eat fish rather than catch it.

Pulpstar said:

Foxy said:

Pulpstar said:

On the subject of vaccines, one of the farmers that delivers hay to the yard has gone blind in one eye with a bout of shingles (Unknown whether permanent or temporary right now). Perhaps we should looking at extending that vaccine to a lower age group (As the CDC in the USA recommends) to over 50s or 60s maybe...

Vaccine wouldn't help for shingles. It is a relapse of the chickenpox virus that has been hibernating, generally from childhood.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/shingles-vaccination/ ?

After having 3 episodes of shingles my wife received a vaccination.

The third time it was caught in time with an anti-viral.

The second time might have been, if the pharmacist hadn't misdiagnosed it as insect bites.

dixiedean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

The shellfish ban comes at what must be an extremely difficult time for shellfish sales across Europe. I suspect EU fisherman are struggling to sell their catches, so I see little prospect of us getting anywhere with this, though of course it's right to try.

It seems to me that in the medium term we should process, and eat, more of our own catch. My own dietary ration does not include shellfish - the majority of fish that I eat at home has breadcrumbs However, we certainly should all be eating more - fish is an extremely important component of a healthy diet, especially at this latitude, and few of us get enough.

I shouldn't. I have a serious allergy.
And frankly we should all have a better diet. We ought to eat 5 a day. But we all don't.

Correct, we don't. But we are (for the most part) seriously deficient in Vitamin D, which we don't get much of in the Winter (or in the Summer come to that!), and oily fish is a very good source. It's not hard to imagine that it was a very important part of allowing our ancestors to succeed in settling in this place.

Benpointer said:

OllyT said:

FlightsPath said:

Better option is for nonTrumpers to leave the Republicans!

But Democrats have the same issue with Bernieites.

But being President is less important than who wins seats in the Congress.

In the internet age, its less important to have 15 minutes of fame but more to see 15 consonants published.

The issues that the Democrats have with their Bernie wing pales into insignificance oil comparison to the problems the GOP has with Trump, the MAGAs and the loony congresswoman from Georgia.

GOP Senators face a stark choice. They either:

1. Throw out the impeachment and Trump continues to dominate their party or...

2. Convict and disbar, which in theory stops Trump running again for the GOP or under another party butppotentially pisses off a large section of their voters.

Unfortunately point 2. would not stop a Trump Party pushing a Trump junior candidate via the GOP or a 3rd Party.

I think they'll go for 1. and hope Trump fades away over the next 2-3 years.

The Donald the Younger has dimmer political prospects than, say Winston Churchill's son Randolph, or HIS son Winston; or FDR Junior or a host of other examples.

In Don Jr's case, there is simply no there there.

Benpointer said:

OllyT said:

FlightsPath said:

Better option is for nonTrumpers to leave the Republicans!

But Democrats have the same issue with Bernieites.

But being President is less important than who wins seats in the Congress.

In the internet age, its less important to have 15 minutes of fame but more to see 15 consonants published.

The issues that the Democrats have with their Bernie wing pales into insignificance oil comparison to the problems the GOP has with Trump, the MAGAs and the loony congresswoman from Georgia.

GOP Senators face a stark choice. They either:

1. Throw out the impeachment and Trump continues to dominate their party or...

2. Convict and disbar, which in theory stops Trump running again for the GOP or under another party butppotentially pisses off a large section of their voters.

Unfortunately point 2. would not stop a Trump Party pushing a Trump junior candidate via the GOP or a 3rd Party.

I think they'll go for 1. and hope Trump fades away over the next 2-3 years.

I think they won't for two reasons.

One, they are spineless. Two, as time has gone on they will think that, surely, this time they will be able to claw back power from Trumpsters so there is no need to take the bold risk of convicting him.

If they are lucky they will be right, but it is the cowardly way out, and could well be wrong.

Theuniondivvie said:

Yet strangely he echoes so many on here re Scotland.

https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1357782986821931009?s=20

Putting Rees-Mogg in charge of the Union campaign would indeed be a disaster; promising to put him in charge of the UK's negotiations with a newly-independent Scotland might be more effective...

On the locals, we are going to be getting seats last fought in the 2016 and 2017 elections. Are those fought in 2016 going to be for just 3 years so we are back in synch?

MarqueeMark said:

On the locals, we are going to be getting seats last fought in the 2016 and 2017 elections. Are those fought in 2016 going to be for just 3 years so we are back in synch?

Wiki says on the PCC elections page that they will serve a 3 year term, so would be back in sync, so I assume the same will be true of the locals.

Edit:

(1)The poll for the ordinary election of councillors for any local government area in England that would otherwise be held on the ordinary day of election in 2020 is to be held instead on the ordinary day of election in 2021.

(2)A councillor who would otherwise, pursuant to section 7 or 16 of the Local Government Act 1972 (elections of councillors), retire on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election in 2020 is instead to retire on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election in 2021; and the councillor’s term of office is extended accordingly.

(3)A councillor who—

(a)is returned at an election the poll for which is held on the ordinary day of election in 2021, and

(b)fills a vacancy arising as a result of the expiry of a term of office extended under subsection (2),

is (notwithstanding section 7 or 16 of the Local Government Act 1972) to retire on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election in 2024; and the councillor’s term of office is reduced accordingly.

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

Head of vaccine task force in Portugal left their job due to "irregularities"...CH4 news reports queue jumpers for limited supplies includes politicians (obvs) through to one if their favourite bakers.

https://youtu.be/DyccmGhq_4Y

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

We should want one if the Scottish electorate want one. Even though I dread the potential outcome.

Charles said:

Foxy said:

Pulpstar said:

On the subject of vaccines, one of the farmers that delivers hay to the yard has gone blind in one eye with a bout of shingles (Unknown whether permanent or temporary right now). Perhaps we should looking at extending that vaccine to a lower age group (As the CDC in the USA recommends) to over 50s or 60s maybe...

Vaccine wouldn't help for shingles. It is a relapse of the chickenpox virus that has been hibernating, generally from childhood.

Not really - different diseases both caused by human alphaherpesvirus 3 (varicella zoster).I think you are wrong to link to chickenpox as the primary disease given the relative severity

Yes, but a relapse from dormant virus in a neuronal ganglion, hence the spread in one dermatome, rather than from contact with external virus.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

One example of a "Union" working well on vaccines has been the UK - if the individual governments had tried to buy vaccines there would have been a right old mess - as it is, from The Falklands, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands to Wales and Scotland - all have had "fair shares" from a pot none of them could have remotely hoped to negotiate themselves.

The Falklands, Channel islands and Gibraltar are in the Union?

All subjects of the queen.....I wrote "a" Union......still wibbling about Care Homes?

What's the name of this Union that they're part of? I know people like you love the terms, titles and appurtenances of your beloved UK.

You're working a bit counterproductively hard to pretend confusion and outrage over this one. I'd say it was absolutely clear what he meant, but for some reason you also get really worked up about that sort of thing too. I think you can find much better examples of terminology use to get pretend upset about.

He meant?
You'll have to do a bit better than that if you're going to keep up this monitoring of my posts thing you seem to have taken on as a sacred task.

@Kle4 is one of the best and fairest posters on this site

Maybe you need to consider that

He's usually fair but not always.

He once accused me of accusing him of mocking when in fact I was accusing him only of preparing to mock - a wholly different thing.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

And the back pedalling starts....

https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1357696373848686593?s=20

What a waste of a month that will have been.

Went for a mulled-wine-in-a-flask-walk with a couple of old Remainer friends today. From Borough Market (splendidly open and almost normal), over busy Tower Bridge, through a weirdly, eerily deserted City of London, to Bank.

We got drunk and talked sex, politics, and rock and roll, and male ageing. Great fun.

The fiercest Remainer has had a total conversion. Now furiously anti-EU. Scandalised by their behaviour. Practically UKIP

The other Remainer remained politely quiet, I suspect he is still very definitely Remain, but he was always more circumspect, he was Remain on a strictly business level, never had any ideology. Apolitical, otherwise.

It's an interesting phenomenon. Maybe those who devoutly *believed* in the Project are those most likely to become anti-EU now. The Zeal of the Converted.

https://twitter.com/EuRollout/status/1357200231444729857

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

One example of a "Union" working well on vaccines has been the UK - if the individual governments had tried to buy vaccines there would have been a right old mess - as it is, from The Falklands, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands to Wales and Scotland - all have had "fair shares" from a pot none of them could have remotely hoped to negotiate themselves.

The Falklands, Channel islands and Gibraltar are in the Union?

All subjects of the queen.....I wrote "a" Union......still wibbling about Care Homes?

What's the name of this Union that they're part of? I know people like you love the terms, titles and appurtenances of your beloved UK.

You're working a bit counterproductively hard to pretend confusion and outrage over this one. I'd say it was absolutely clear what he meant, but for some reason you also get really worked up about that sort of thing too. I think you can find much better examples of terminology use to get pretend upset about.

He meant?
You'll have to do a bit better than that if you're going to keep up this monitoring of my posts thing you seem to have taken on as a sacred task.

Kle4 is one of the best and fairest posters on this site

Maybe you need to consider that

He's usually fair but not always.

He once accused me of accusing him of mocking when in fact I was accusing him only of preparing to mock - a wholly different thing.

No one is fair all the time. I also told HYUFD to f*ck off once (actually it was multiple times in a single post) (oh, and I told AlistairMeeks to f*ck off as well), I've lost my cool with Sindy supporters multiple times (as it is a more emotional subject for me), and I'm no stranger to condescension. Presumably I'm also just flat out wrong plenty of f times, but I'm hardly likely to be able to recognise that.

I got annoyed by Theuniondivvie and so occasionally decide to have some personal fun by poking fun at him for being sanctimonious. I can hardly claim to be whiter than white on that score, but I've also replied perfectly seriously on many of his posts, so whinging about it just seems strange as it is not some monitoring to respond to people - he likes to mock and provoke people for things he himself does, like telling people what others meant and accusing others of taking things seriously, and I happen to find that worthy of gentle ribbing.

I doubt he is actually upset by it, and would find the idea I find it amusing sad if anything, so I don't think he or anyone else needs to care. I've also said he's the funniest poster on here.

And I still don't see the difference between accusing someone of preparing to mock and actually mocking. Until someone actually does a thing how can you even tell that they are preparing to do something - they might surprise you.

BluestBlue said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Yet strangely he echoes so many on here re Scotland.

https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1357782986821931009?s=20

Putting Rees-Mogg in charge of the Union campaign would indeed be a disaster; promising to put him in charge of the UK's negotiations with a newly-independent Scotland might be more effective...

Jacob Rees-Mogg in that clip falls, like others, into the trap placed by Nicola Sturgeon of talking about the UK, and by implication England, being better than Scotland.

To make the unionist case, he needs to tread carefully round the SNP's elephant trap and instead talk about Scotland benefiting by being part of the UK, not benefiting from the UK's largesse.

Foxy said:

Leon said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

And the back pedalling starts....

https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1357696373848686593?s=20

What a waste of a month that will have been.

Went for a mulled-wine-in-a-flask-walk with a couple of old Remainer friends today. From Borough Market (splendidly open and almost normal), over busy Tower Bridge, through a weirdly, eerily deserted City of London, to Bank.

We got drunk and talked sex, politics, and rock and roll, and male ageing. Great fun.

The fiercest Remainer has had a total conversion. Now furiously anti-EU. Scandalised by their behaviour. Practically UKIP

The other Remainer remained politely quiet, I suspect he is still very definitely Remain, but he was always more circumspect, he was Remain on a strictly business level, never had any ideology. Apolitical, otherwise.

It's an interesting phenomenon. Maybe those who devoutly *believed* in the Project are those most likely to become anti-EU now. The Zeal of the Converted.

Though your mates are as unrepresentative as your Albanian taxidrivers.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1357725933176844290?s=19

That is actually quite a lot lower than I would have expected from the Leave side. Maybe more are being affected (or know people affected) by the port troubles than anticipated.

rcs1000 said:

Black_Rook said:

CarlottaVance said:

Black_Rook said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/JakeCordell/status/1357785139733008388?s=20

1. He went to Moscow to grovel
2. They used him for this
3. For good measure, they threw out those EU member state diplomats about five minutes after his meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister had finished

Was this mission another of Ursula's bright ideas?

I think member states (Germany?) pushed for it.......

https://www.politico.eu/article/borrell-stands-by-as-lavrov-calls-eu-unreliable-partner/

I have discovered this piece on the visit, which to be fair to Ursula suggests that Borrell himself was keen on going to Moscow.

I'm not sure that being used as a mop by Sergei Lavrov was what he had in mind, but live and learn eh?

But what has Russia gained out of this? At a time when they've lost their friend in the White House, they've now pissed off a few Germans.

And, of course, this is happening at a time when Western Europe - thanks to a combination of renewables and LNG - is becoming less dependent on Russian gas.

Distraction from the existential internal threat.

Leon said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

And the back pedalling starts....

https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1357696373848686593?s=20

What a waste of a month that will have been.

Went for a mulled-wine-in-a-flask-walk with a couple of old Remainer friends today. From Borough Market (splendidly open and almost normal), over busy Tower Bridge, through a weirdly, eerily deserted City of London, to Bank.

We got drunk and talked sex, politics, and rock and roll, and male ageing. Great fun.

The fiercest Remainer has had a total conversion. Now furiously anti-EU. Scandalised by their behaviour. Practically UKIP

The other Remainer remained politely quiet, I suspect he is still very definitely Remain, but he was always more circumspect, he was Remain on a strictly business level, never had any ideology. Apolitical, otherwise.

It's an interesting phenomenon. Maybe those who devoutly *believed* in the Project are those most likely to become anti-EU now. The Zeal of the Converted.

You have a vivid imagination. Have you ever considered fiction writing as a career?

SandyRentool said:

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

On the locals, we are going to be getting seats last fought in the 2016 and 2017 elections. Are those fought in 2016 going to be for just 3 years so we are back in synch?

Wiki says on the PCC elections page that they will serve a 3 year term, so would be back in sync, so I assume the same will be true of the locals.

Edit:

(1)The poll for the ordinary election of councillors for any local government area in England that would otherwise be held on the ordinary day of election in 2020 is to be held instead on the ordinary day of election in 2021.

(2)A councillor who would otherwise, pursuant to section 7 or 16 of the Local Government Act 1972 (elections of councillors), retire on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election in 2020 is instead to retire on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election in 2021; and the councillor’s term of office is extended accordingly.

(3)A councillor who—

(a)is returned at an election the poll for which is held on the ordinary day of election in 2021, and

(b)fills a vacancy arising as a result of the expiry of a term of office extended under subsection (2),

is (notwithstanding section 7 or 16 of the Local Government Act 1972) to retire on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election in 2024; and the councillor’s term of office is reduced accordingly.

Ha ha. We are getting rid of ours! The West Yorkshire mayor will take over the responsibility.

Funny how what was a full time job can be handled by the mayor in their lunch hour.

Edit: I of course refer to the PCC, not our council!

That's possible, you can get rid of them? That would be wonderful, what a bloody pointless job it is.

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

We should want one if the Scottish electorate want one. Even though I dread the potential outcome.

Grow a pair, FFS

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

We should want one if the Scottish electorate want one. Even though I dread the potential outcome.

Grow a pair, FFS

I think fighting them to preserve the Union is a way of showing a pair, rather than ignoring a basic question of fairness because it would be convenient (short term at least). To ignore that if they want another vote is cowardice, the equivalent of stuffing a couple of giant peaches down there and boasting at the size of your pair.

IshmaelZ said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

dixiedean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

The shellfish ban comes at what must be an extremely difficult time for shellfish sales across Europe. I suspect EU fisherman are struggling to sell their catches, so I see little prospect of us getting anywhere with this, though of course it's right to try.

It seems to me that in the medium term we should process, and eat, more of our own catch. My own dietary ration does not include shellfish - the majority of fish that I eat at home has breadcrumbs However, we certainly should all be eating more - fish is an extremely important component of a healthy diet, especially at this latitude, and few of us get enough.

I shouldn't. I have a serious allergy.
And frankly we should all have a better diet. We ought to eat 5 a day. But we all don't.

Correct, we don't. But we are (for the most part) seriously deficient in Vitamin D, which we don't get much of in the Winter (or in the Summer come to that!), and oily fish is a very good source. It's not hard to imagine that it was a very important part of allowing our ancestors to succeed in settling in this place.

Shellfish aren't, and even something like salmon is only slightly better than nothing - you'd have to eat a lot of it every single day to get close to the rda. I doubt the argument about "our ancestors" because the bulk of them lived a long way from the sea and fish was never a staple diet. You can get by fine for years with a serious vitamin D deficiency, and they only had to get through the winter. It's a mistake to think of vitamin d as primarily a diet thing at all.

Pretty much all early settlements would have been near the sea or rivers, allowing the dwellers to fish. So I would need some sort of citation that the bulk of them lived far away from the ability to access fish, and that it was never a part of the staple diet.

We can get by 'fine for years', but we do have chronic disease running at an all time high in today's society. This is not purely down to Vitamin D, but there can be little doubt that the modern diet and lifestyle is considerably to blame. When people were settling in what is now the UK, they didn't have access to medicines and doctors, so the lifestyle factors either worked or it was death. Your other point about Vitamin D is irrelevant - my whole comment on the fish was as a supplement to that which our bodies create from sun exposure.

kle4 said:

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

We should want one if the Scottish electorate want one. Even though I dread the potential outcome.

Grow a pair, FFS

I think fighting them to preserve the Union is a way of showing a pair, rather than ignoring a basic question of fairness because it would be convenient (short term at least). To ignore that if they want another vote is cowardice, the equivalent of stuffing a couple of giant peaches down there and boasting at the size of your pair.

You shouldn't take TUD as gospel. 'They' doesn't exist. Many in Scotland want a vote. Many passionately oppose another vote. The people who actually want a vote by this Christmas I would imagine are confined to SNP politicians and the loonier fringes of their support base.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

We should want one if the Scottish electorate want one. Even though I dread the potential outcome.

Grow a pair, FFS

I think fighting them to preserve the Union is a way of showing a pair, rather than ignoring a basic question of fairness because it would be convenient (short term at least). To ignore that if they want another vote is cowardice, the equivalent of stuffing a couple of giant peaches down there and boasting at the size of your pair.

You shouldn't take TUD as gospel. 'They' doesn't exist. Many in Scotland want a vote. Many passionately oppose another vote. The people who actually want a vote by this Christmas I would imagine are confined to SNP politicians and the loonier fringes of their support base.

I don't assume they do want a vote and would prefer if they didn't. But if they demostrate electorally they do, well, that's that, whether it is this year or next. People vote for things I don't like all the time. And if they do get a vote, I hope that Yes does not win.

And I am certainly pessimistic on the subject, but I don't take the word of anyone as gospel. Sindy supporters are no more likely to be angels when it comes to objective analysis than anyone else is.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Head of vaccine task force in Portugal left their job due to "irregularities"...CH4 news reports queue jumpers for limited supplies includes politicians (obvs) through to one if their favourite bakers.

https://youtu.be/DyccmGhq_4Y

I think there is a huge amount of media sensationalism in that report.

We have had 12 months of it here - people are transferred from one hospital to another, or one hospital out of 200 or so declares an 'major incident', and it is OMIGOD IT IS ALL COLLAPSING AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO DYEE.

No. Services under pressure and struggling to cope. That is not collapsing.

Remember that (non practising) activist Dr who got an internal 'how we will manage this' email from the Royal London, and quoted one para to sell the media a "NHS Disaster" line, and the media morons all swallowed it hook line and sinker?

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

And the back pedalling starts....

https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1357696373848686593?s=20

What a waste of a month that will have been.

Went for a mulled-wine-in-a-flask-walk with a couple of old Remainer friends today. From Borough Market (splendidly open and almost normal), over busy Tower Bridge, through a weirdly, eerily deserted City of London, to Bank.

We got drunk and talked sex, politics, and rock and roll, and male ageing. Great fun.

The fiercest Remainer has had a total conversion. Now furiously anti-EU. Scandalised by their behaviour. Practically UKIP

The other Remainer remained politely quiet, I suspect he is still very definitely Remain, but he was always more circumspect, he was Remain on a strictly business level, never had any ideology. Apolitical, otherwise.

It's an interesting phenomenon. Maybe those who devoutly *believed* in the Project are those most likely to become anti-EU now. The Zeal of the Converted.

You do realise that you've just confessed to an illegal gathering?

It's a good job you use an alias and nobody knows your true identity.

Very true! Three different households. Ah well. They know where to find me*

*Shetland

@SandyRentool

Never believe a fiction writer , particularly when one of you is pissed.

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

We should want one if the Scottish electorate want one. Even though I dread the potential outcome.

Grow a pair, FFS

I think fighting them to preserve the Union is a way of showing a pair, rather than ignoring a basic question of fairness because it would be convenient (short term at least). To ignore that if they want another vote is cowardice, the equivalent of stuffing a couple of giant peaches down there and boasting at the size of your pair.

No. The UK government, necessarily, decides when a referendum can be held again, because a potential YES vote - indeed the instability of ANY vote - severely affects (mostly negatively) the economic prospects of everyone in the UK. That is why the matter of holding indyrefs is rightly reserved for Westminster, where all four nations are represented.

The Scots had a vote 7 bloody years ago. There is no precedent for any political union allowing another pivotal secessionist referendum so quickly after the first. Canada and Quebec waited 15 years, and they have not had one since.

15 years seems the bare minimum to me. A generation by the most austere definition. We had to wait 40 years between the first EU ref and the second.

Sturgeon can win 100% of the seats in Holyrood, I really don't give a tartan fuck. Boris should stand firm. And of course he will, because he knows he might lose, and that would be the instant end of his career. In the worst possible way.

Sindyref 2, just maybe 2025? - if the Nats are lucky, more likely it will be 2030+. But it will happen, as it should.

I think Boris will hold firm, as there's little advantage for him, the party or the UK to granting it. It may not help, but he can always hope for something to come up so a delay might help.

And I'm not against the idea in principle of these sorts of questions being asked further apart.

Really I don't think that limits on how often a question is asked, and thresholds for certain types of decision (as are common in many countries) are inherently bad ideas. But since neither are rules that exist and we didn't specify that legally last time, I also cannot argue against the Scots demanding something over and over, even if I disagree. I don't think any political party of government is going to revist the question of rejoining the EU for a long time, but if they wanted to in 2024 and won that would be that.

geoffw said:

rcs1000 said:

Black_Rook said:

CarlottaVance said:

Black_Rook said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/JakeCordell/status/1357785139733008388?s=20

1. He went to Moscow to grovel
2. They used him for this
3. For good measure, they threw out those EU member state diplomats about five minutes after his meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister had finished

Was this mission another of Ursula's bright ideas?

I think member states (Germany?) pushed for it.......

https://www.politico.eu/article/borrell-stands-by-as-lavrov-calls-eu-unreliable-partner/

I have discovered this piece on the visit, which to be fair to Ursula suggests that Borrell himself was keen on going to Moscow.

I'm not sure that being used as a mop by Sergei Lavrov was what he had in mind, but live and learn eh?

But what has Russia gained out of this? At a time when they've lost their friend in the White House, they've now pissed off a few Germans.

And, of course, this is happening at a time when Western Europe - thanks to a combination of renewables and LNG - is becoming less dependent on Russian gas.

Distraction from the existential internal threat.

Fair point

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

I always knew you were a cert for the coward column.

The touching thing is that you probably believe this line of attack - "cowardice" - actually WORKS

I hope we can send spare vaccines to Portugal as soon as possible.

Andy_JS said:

I hope we can send spare vaccines to Portugal as soon as possible.

By the time we have vaccinated our vulnerable groups the EU may also have started receiving sufficient supplies, with any luck - they do have an awful lot ordered.

Andy_JS said:

I hope we can send spare vaccines to Portugal as soon as possible.

I saw the C4 report on the news. It really does sound very bad there. 4 days of unlimited Christmas gatherings. It could easily have been very much the same here.

In Leicester the peak seems passed, we are down to 360 patients from 500 a fortnight ago. 81 on ITU though some are transfers from other areas. Covid ICU is usually at least a 2 week stay.

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

I always knew you were a cert for the coward column.

The touching thing is that you probably believe this line of attack - "cowardice" - actually WORKS

Aw, I thought you were going to rework your 'stared into the barrel of a Hezbollah AK47' old bore anecdote with a hunting for exotic flint slant.

What do you think needs to work here? Nothing you or I do will make a bawhair of difference, this is unimportant randoms bickering on the internet. You'll continue to fulminate impotently and I'll do whatever I can with money, time and votes to get to a referendum. At that point I'll have a vote and you can cry gin soaked tears when a much reduced bunch of creeps and sentimentalists gather in Trafalgar Square imploring Scotland not to go. Déjà vu all over again.

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

I always knew you were a cert for the coward column.

I think that Johnson will refuse a referendum, but that will greatly increase Scottish resentment of Westminster. Also a refusal would allow the SNP to get past its little spat.

Better to get on with it, for all concerned.

It'll be fine, I'm sure the new SLAB leader will see a massive revival that will safeguard things from now on.

The new broom at the No 10 Union unit off to a good start

https://twitter.com/ropoem/status/1357828982784278532?s=20

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

I always knew you were a cert for the coward column.

The touching thing is that you probably believe this line of attack - "cowardice" - actually WORKS

Aw, I thought you were going to rework your 'stared into the barrel of a Hezbollah AK47' old bore anecdote with a hunting for exotic flint slant.

What do you think needs to work here? Nothing you or I do will make a bawhair of difference, this is unimportant randoms bickering on the internet. You'll continue to fulminate impotently and I'll do whatever I can with money, time and votes to get to a referendum. At that point I'll have a vote and you can cry gin soaked tears when a much reduced bunch of creeps and sentimentalists gather in Trafalgar Square imploring Scotland not to go. Déjà vu all over again.

OK let's have a bet. I bet 50 of the Queen's good solid English pounds that Scotland will not be allowed an officially-sanctioned-by-Westminster vote before the next UK General Election (probably in 2024 but let's set that aside). Sturgeon may, under pressure from her jihadis, go for a wildcat unsanctioned vote but you and I know that would be suicidally stupid, hence her intense reluctance to take that route

I nominate Peter the Puntah as our referee

Jeremy Cliffe in the New Statesman.

"The bare facts of the EU’s vaccine roll-out require no Eurosceptic spin to be damning. On 31 January France vaccinated 4,560 people. Britain, a country of similar population size, wealth, level of centralisation and pharmaceutical strengths, jabbed 319,038. The EU has vaccinated about three in every 100 people; the UK has vaccinated about 14. I have roughly as many close friends and relatives, of a similar range of ages, in the UK as I do in Germany, where I live. I know about ten jab recipients in the UK and not one here.

No, the EU will not collapse. And yes, it will probably muddle through to some sort of solution over the coming months. But this is unequivocally a farce. Many will die unnecessarily. And the excuses for this European tragedy are unsatisfactory."

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2021/02/why-pro-europeans-should-be-incensed-about-eu-s-vaccines-debacle

BluestBlue said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new broom at the No 10 Union unit off to a good start

https://twitter.com/ropoem/status/1357828982784278532?s=20

What more d'you want? If we didn't like you we'd have sent Prince Andrew instead.

lol

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

I always knew you were a cert for the coward column.

The touching thing is that you probably believe this line of attack - "cowardice" - actually WORKS

Aw, I thought you were going to rework your 'stared into the barrel of a Hezbollah AK47' old bore anecdote with a hunting for exotic flint slant.

What do you think needs to work here? Nothing you or I do will make a bawhair of difference, this is unimportant randoms bickering on the internet. You'll continue to fulminate impotently and I'll do whatever I can with money, time and votes to get to a referendum. At that point I'll have a vote and you can cry gin soaked tears when a much reduced bunch of creeps and sentimentalists gather in Trafalgar Square imploring Scotland not to go. Déjà vu all over again.

OK let's have a bet. I bet 50 of the Queen's good solid English pounds that Scotland will not be allowed an officially-sanctioned-by-Westminster vote before the next UK General Election (probably in 2024 but let's set that aside). Sturgeon may, under pressure from her jihadis, go for a wildcat unsanctioned vote but you and I know that would be suicidally stupid, hence her intense reluctance to take that route

I nominate Peter the Puntah as our referee

You're such a flaky Johnny Come Lately I'd want proof of your actuality first. PM me a pic of you holding tomorrow's Daily Mail and I'll think about it.

BluestBlue said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The new broom at the No 10 Union unit off to a good start

https://twitter.com/ropoem/status/1357828982784278532?s=20

What more d'you want? If we didn't like you we'd have sent Prince Andrew instead.

There's got to be a line about Andrew's Cross there, but it's far too late for me to hone it into anything good.

(But sending the walking definition of Minor Royal, whose title is from the South of England... one does have to wonder if No 10 are now just trolling for lolz.)

Still no vaccines for our surgery here in the Lakes. It's been 3 weeks since they last had supplies. They have done all their group 1-4 and those of us in 5-6 are left anxiously waiting .......

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

'Scottish independence: Are unionists fighting a losing battle?'

tinyurl.com/10wh5b22

I know there's a big Kevin Hague fan on PB.

'“Some unionists feel like they are fighting a losing battle,” conceded Kevin Hague, a Scotland-based entrepreneur, pro-UK campaigner and chairman of These Islands, a pro-union think-tank.'

It should surprise no one that Kevin is taking the standard Unionist coward's way out of avoiding that losing battle by refusing to let it take place.

'“It’s absolutely true that those campaigning for separation have got more momentum and a greater sense of readiness for a referendum than those who would defend the union,” he said.
But, he added, even if the SNP were to gain majority control of the Scottish Parliament, and manage to legislate for a second independence poll, “there isn’t going to be an independence referendum anytime soon”.'

His last sentence is correct

I think all his sentences are correct. However, that doesn't mean he's being particularly hypocritical, which seems to be the implication. Is there a rule that Indyref 2 must take place at a time most convenient electorally for the Yes side? If there is, it seems an odd one.

A general opinion is that referendums take place when the electorate vote for them to take place.
There definitely isn't a rule that they shouldn't take place because it's inconvenient electorally for the No side, except in the heads of the No side.

lol

When the British people want another Scottish referendum, they will express their desire in a Free Vote in the House of Commons. That's how it works. Soz boz

I always knew you were a cert for the coward column.

The touching thing is that you probably believe this line of attack - "cowardice" - actually WORKS

Aw, I thought you were going to rework your 'stared into the barrel of a Hezbollah AK47' old bore anecdote with a hunting for exotic flint slant.

What do you think needs to work here? Nothing you or I do will make a bawhair of difference, this is unimportant randoms bickering on the internet. You'll continue to fulminate impotently and I'll do whatever I can with money, time and votes to get to a referendum. At that point I'll have a vote and you can cry gin soaked tears when a much reduced bunch of creeps and sentimentalists gather in Trafalgar Square imploring Scotland not to go. Déjà vu all over again.

OK let's have a bet. I bet 50 of the Queen's good solid English pounds that Scotland will not be allowed an officially-sanctioned-by-Westminster vote before the next UK General Election (probably in 2024 but let's set that aside). Sturgeon may, under pressure from her jihadis, go for a wildcat unsanctioned vote but you and I know that would be suicidally stupid, hence her intense reluctance to take that route

I nominate Peter the Puntah as our referee

You're such a flaky Johnny Come Lately I'd want proof of your actuality first. PM me a pic of you holding tomorrow's Daily Mail and I'll think about it.

Ah feck off, you jessie. Peter the P can vouch. Otherwise, do one

Consider that one has been done

COWARD

Omnium said:

kinabalu said:

RIP Christopher Plummer. Edelweiss is for me the best bit of a great film. Always brings a lump.

You old softy.

RIP Christopher Plummer is a sentiment that I echo though.

Seconded.

That dance with Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music - sheer love and lust and longing - https://youtu.be/dUFBOC6lQoo.

"Remote workers tap scheme to see out pandemic in Caribbean
‘Digital nomads’ lured to economically hard-hit islands with visas and no income tax"

https://www.ft.com/content/a0731e22-6407-4a52-af10-598fe2ccfd70

Not a subscriber but using google search seems to bring it up un-paywalled.

Leon said:

Can I just say that today I made my own mayonnaise?

To go with my home dressed cooked Devon crab, all prepared by me and bought at Borough Market?

AND IT WAS EXCELLENT?

In recent weeks I have also made bearnaise, hollandaise, beef randang, Singapore laksa, wagyu ribeye, you name it,

This shit isn't hard, and you can do it at home for about a tenth the price they charge you in a resto.

I wonder if one of the unexpected victims of the pandemics will be restaurants, not because we don't want to go to them any more (OMFG we DO) but because we have all learned that what they do isn't that difficult, AND they put 500% on every bottle of wine.

Sounds good - try a beurre blanc sauce. Omnomnom.