I am shocked by this poll finding – politicalbetting.com

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic

I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.

I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.

It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.

Can’t be arsed

Not acceptable. I'm waiting.

I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There

You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously

You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.

OK, I'll have a go at this.
When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).

I miss that.

Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.

That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.

But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.

*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.

I feel more specifically British than I ever did growing up, speaking personally. There's very much more of a more positive English identity out there to be developed, but I don't personally find it in the currently more common, more reactive and angry strains of Englishness.

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.

I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.

Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.

Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.

Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.

But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.

Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.

I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.

Well that's an interesting point. What do people who say they "love" their country actually mean by it? Could be a benign sort of thing, or it could be a bit yucky. Depends.

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic

I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.

I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.

It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.

Can’t be arsed

Not acceptable. I'm waiting.

I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There

You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously

You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.

OK, I'll have a go at this.
When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).

I miss that.

Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.

That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.

But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.

*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.

At least you have tried. And all the more credit.

interestingly, the Labour argument would give far more importance to Livingston - that a working class person in Livingston has everything in common with one in, say, Luton, and far more so than with, say, a Scottish Tory.

Also - the Scottish Tories were a separate party up to about 1955 - the Unionist Party - but that was Union with Ireland as much as England. Still, that nicely illustrates your thesis.

Until 1965 actually. They merged with the main Conservative party at the same time as the Liberal Nationals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Scotland)

Cookie said:

Off thread: currently sitting in Bodmin Minor Injuries unit after youngest daughter sliced her foot open quite horribly on something sharp in Polzeath beach. It had all been going so well: middle daughter and I had been in the sea, swimming and dodging the waves and were busy constructing channels on the sand; oldest daughter just off to mooch around the no-longer-massively-restricted shops with wife, youngest daughter had made several new friends among the rock pools, when suddenly a scream of anguish and much blood. So much blood. A very nice man from the RNLI patched her up well enough to get her up to the car and then a 45 minute drive to Bodmin.
I've never been to such a quiet, tiny hospital. But it's very nice.
Broadly confident they'll patch her together and we'll be out there again to orrow, though perhaps more cautiously shod.

Ouch - sympathies to you both. When I was about 8 or 9 I broke my leg before a Devon holiday. Apparently I spent the holiday on the beach with a full plaster cast wrapped in a bun bag to keep it dry...

IshmaelZ said:

I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.

I'm a convert to the idea of areas/cities/neigbourhoods/streets/islands etc being unmistakably their own place and I love some of them for sure, get that sort of electric shock I used to get occasionally when seeing a much adored woman. Countries are maybe a bit too big and unwieldy for that sort of thing. As for unitary states..

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?

What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.

My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.

The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.

Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).

Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?

Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.

I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't?
Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..

I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.

Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.

I largely agree

On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence

In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North

If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland

That's not what a border poll is!

I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.

Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?

Probably, but still part of the UK

Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debatable_Lands

What would happen if Ayrshire voted to stay with the UK?

What would the turnip thrower do?

Fat chance of that ever happening, despite the unionist fantasies, absolutely no part of Scotland will become English when independence occurs. More likely Northern England would want to join Scotland.

‘Explode’ would have sufficed, Malc.

Why would I explode , I either enjoy lower taxation or move house.

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Are referendums not a bit like democracy: the worst way to resolve things apart from all the others?

What we have seen all too painfully in Scotland, and indeed in the UK in respect of Brexit, is that they are divisive, disruptive and change very few minds but so does a situation where there is a very substantial minority who want something but cannot get it through Westminster either because they don't stand in enough seats or because there is a cosy metropolitan consensus shared by all the major parties.

My view, FWIW, is that those wanting a referendum won a very, very narrow majority of the vote in Scotland at the last election. I think that entitles them to at least ask the question.

The EU referendum changed a few minds in Scotland about indy if various analyses are correct.

Indeed it did. It made anyone with any understanding of economics realise that independence was now suicidal because we would have to choose between the SM of the UK (in which case why bother, we would be even more dominated by England than we are now and the democratic deficit would be worse) or the SM of the EU (with a hard border from Berwick to Carlisle and all the problems of NI plus no doubt some bonus extras such as currency).

Unfortunately the SNP have prevented schools from teaching economics so who knows what might happen next?

Edit, it is also worth noting that although the decline in support for independence commenced before Brexit actually happened the trend has continued since January.

I don't think we'd have 'all the problems of NI' unless you know something about Unionist ultras that I don't?
Murdo in a balaclava? Hmm, well one obvious advantage to that..

I know that the vast majority of our readers find Scottish Independence arguments tedious beyond belief but to demonstrate the point made by the thread header let's suppose that the result in 2014 had been the other way around. Is 55:45 really any basis for something as disruptive as breaking up the country? I think it would be a calamitous basis on which to start.

Exactly the same point could of course be made against me in relation to Brexit where I was the disrupter and it was even closer. I recognise the force of that argument. Its why I thought that Parliament really should have gone for a soft Brexit, May style, in the first instance and we could then determine whether to get closer to the EU again or further away over time. I very much regret that we did not achieve this. It has left the country very divided and weaker as a result.

I largely agree

On another point, if the SNP really do go for the ‘yay let’s have a hard border in berwick’ policy, this throws up lots of further issues. If the indyref2 was actually won by YES, and a hard border was sliced across Britain, I can foresee mass civil disobedience in the Borders, maybe even violence

In addition, this policy underlines why any new indyref must be a choice for the UK Parliament as a whole (including Scots MPs), a hard Anglo-Scots border would severely affect millions of English people in the North

If they do have a hard border it’s only reasonable to have a border poll - as in Ireland - so individual districts get to decide whether they are England or Scotland

That's not what a border poll is!

I was thinking of the decision that led to Ulster’s 9 counties becoming NI’s 6. I couldn’t be arsed to look up the precise term, but it conveyed the meaning.

Wouldn't they become a new entity of "Southern Scotland" if precedent is followed?

Probably, but still part of the UK

Although I think the Debatable Lands sounds better

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debatable_Lands

What would happen if Ayrshire voted to stay with the UK?

What would the turnip thrower do?

Fat chance of that ever happening, despite the unionist fantasies, absolutely no part of Scotland will become English when independence occurs. More likely Northern England would want to join Scotland.

Northern England and the English border counties will do very well at the expense of Scots investment and jobs

IshmaelZ said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

malcolmg said:

Candy said:

kinabalu said:

Candy said:

kinabalu said:

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.

A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").

The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.

The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).

What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?

It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.

Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).

There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.

Not another nutjob unionist who cannot count.

I don't think he is very familiar with the SNP or SGP manifesto or the results of Holyrood and Westminster elections since 2014. Anyway, free range pork chops for dinner, with cabbage and home grown spuds, so I will be off now - have a nice evening,

I am just back from lunch , I had Shetland Mussels , seabass with linguine and Pavlova. Unfortunately as I was driving I had to pass on the Pornstar Martini's.
PS: Enjoy and a pleasant evening to you too.

They sound a bit bleugh. Vanilla vodka? Passion fruit puree?

The dirty martini is a permitted drink.

I had a sip and it tasted very pleasant.
PS: I do agree the Dirty one would be better

DougSeal said:

Cookie said:

Off thread: currently sitting in Bodmin Minor Injuries unit after youngest daughter sliced her foot open quite horribly on something sharp in Polzeath beach. It had all been going so well: middle daughter and I had been in the sea, swimming and dodging the waves and were busy constructing channels on the sand; oldest daughter just off to mooch around the no-longer-massively-restricted shops with wife, youngest daughter had made several new friends among the rock pools, when suddenly a scream of anguish and much blood. So much blood. A very nice man from the RNLI patched her up well enough to get her up to the car and then a 45 minute drive to Bodmin.
I've never been to such a quiet, tiny hospital. But it's very nice.
Broadly confident they'll patch her together and we'll be out there again to orrow, though perhaps more cautiously shod.

Ouch! Sorry to hear that. Hope the rest of your holiday is a good one!

Yes indeed, ditto. It always makes me particularly angry when there's something that doesn't belong polluting and disfiguring beaches, and to be as hazardous as injuring is even worse.

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.

I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.

Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.

Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.

Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.

But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.

Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.

I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.

Well that's an interesting point. What do people who say they "love" their country actually mean by it? Could be a benign sort of thing, or it could be a bit yucky. Depends.

I think we need @casino on this one

IshmaelZ said:

I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.

If I were a bluff old cynic, I'd imagine their "love" is qualified by their support for the existing Government and its policies.

Would this "love" be so evident if Jeremy Corbyn were Prime Minister and instigating his Labour policies even if that meant keeping the UK "together" ?

Just a thought.

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic

I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.

I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.

It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.

Can’t be arsed

Not acceptable. I'm waiting.

I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There

You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously

You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.

OK, I'll have a go at this.
When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).

I miss that.

Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.

That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.

But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.

*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.

At least you have tried. And all the more credit.

interestingly, the Labour argument would give far more importance to Livingston - that a working class person in Livingston has everything in common with one in, say, Luton, and far more so than with, say, a Scottish Tory.

Also - the Scottish Tories were a separate party up to about 1955 - the Unionist Party - but that was Union with Ireland as much as England. Still, that nicely illustrates your thesis.

Until 1965 actually. They merged with the main Conservative party at the same time as the Liberal Nationals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Scotland)

There is no Scottish Tory party , they are an offshoot and part of the London Tory party , aka labour.

Omnium said:

squareroot2 said:

Omnium said:

eek said:

ydoethur said:

Quincel said:

We've all ignored the brilliant strategy deployed by France at this Olympics, setting themselves up for the biggest possible home medal surge at Paris 2024.

What, you mean they’re all going to cheat and sabotage their competitors?

The wacky races olympics

I've never properly considered growing a moustache, but Dick Dastardly would be my hero if I did.

I had a beard for 30 yrs and when I shaved it off I wondered why Ihad been so stupid as to have one. I looked awful. If I had had just a moustache, I would have looked frightful.
Moustaches are so 19th century.

Actually I passed a chap in the street yesterday. I'd guess he was Sri-Lankan or thereabouts in origin. Anyway he had a great moustache.

Did your chin look like you recalled after 30y?

Why Sri Lankan, rather than Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi?

Candy said:

kinabalu said:

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

You are not getting the arguments put forward by them because you are English.

In other words it's because there is no jeopardy for you, because you are English and are unaffected by Scottish independence.

Here is an analogy: lots of English Remainers are "certain" that Northern Ireland will vote for a unified Ireland "because Brexit".

When you ask them, "Would you vote to abolish the NHS?", they indignantly reply with a resounding No.

But they assume that the Northern Irish are so in love with the EU that they'd vote to give up the NHS and pay 50 euros per GP visit and 750 euros per hospital stay. In reality even the catholic Northern Irish won't vote for that. Nobody loves Ursula von der Leyen enough to introduce that kind of jeopardy into their lives.

It's similar for the Scots. Despite professed love for the EU and admiration for VdL, they couldn't bring themselves to dice with death and reject AZ to help her crusade against that company. If they loved the EU and hated the UK with a purple passion, they'd put up with austerity to ensure their economy and currency was viable post independence. But they won't do that either - too much jeopardy. They could have given the SNP a resounding majority to force another ref, but they refused to do that either. Too risky.

You see?

What a pile of pompous piffle.

There aren't "lots of English remainers" that are "certain" that NI would vote for a unified Ireland - certainly not for many years. Source?

Your obsession with VdL is just bizarre, as is the incoherent argument about the AZ vaccine.

ydoethur said:

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

I'm sure it was recognised and understood, they just won't say it.

I don't know why anyone would work in government PR, it seems soul destroying. As you say, calling on the winning side to stop winning is just idiotic to say.

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.

I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.

Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.

Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.

Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.

But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.

Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.

I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.

Well that's an interesting point. What do people who say they "love" their country actually mean by it? Could be a benign sort of thing, or it could be a bit yucky. Depends.

I love my country.
I like many other countries. I could happily gaze out on Lake Garda for hours, I marvel at Prague or Amsterdam, I am exhilarated by the endless woods of North America. But I don't love them for they are not mine; they are not home.
But give me the view of Lancashire from Rivington Pike, or Cheshire from Shutlingsloe, or Sheffield as you come in from the Peak District, or the soft undulations of Devon, or the Yorkshire Dales, or any view at all in the Lake District, and it is genuine lump-in-the-throat stuff.
I used to often visit relatives in southern Spain. That moment when the plane descended through the clouds above Manchester Airport - the green, GREEN, fields - so very green, after a week in Spain - the neat suburbs, the wonderful familiarity - if that feeling wasn't love I don't know what it was.
And it's not just geography. I love so much about England. Pubs. Comedy. The font on our road signs. Old fashioned road signs. The English English language. Cricket. Rugby. Most of our accents; the cadence to British speech. Baked goods. Real ale. Mild sarcasm. I love my country.
As I said before my country used to be Britain. My relationship with Scotland is more guarded nowadays. The view from Stirling Castle still stirs, but is it mine any more? Probably not. As someone alluded upthread, Scotland no longer loves me back.
There are gradations within England too of course. The North West and the Pennines arouse my love most of all; Sussex and Kent, on the other hand, lovely are they are, do not I flame the same emotions - they are English, but far from home in land and in accent.
That is what it means to me to love my country. I don't think these feelings are anything strange or anything that needs anypartocular justification. I don't feel any moral superiority to be English. I just feel extremely fortunate. But I'm sure a French man or a Bulgarian could articulate an altogether equivalent set of emotions for their own country.

You are John Major and I claim my £5. (Though you forgot to mention the maids cycling to church or whatever it was he said).

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.

I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.

Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.

Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.

Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.

But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.

Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.

I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.

Well that's an interesting point. What do people who say they "love" their country actually mean by it? Could be a benign sort of thing, or it could be a bit yucky. Depends.

I love my country.
I like many other countries. I could happily gaze out on Lake Garda for hours, I marvel at Prague or Amsterdam, I am exhilarated by the endless woods of North America. But I don't love them for they are not mine; they are not home.
But give me the view of Lancashire from Rivington Pike, or Cheshire from Shutlingsloe, or Sheffield as you come in from the Peak District, or the soft undulations of Devon, or the Yorkshire Dales, or any view at all in the Lake District, and it is genuine lump-in-the-throat stuff.
I used to often visit relatives in southern Spain. That moment when the plane descended through the clouds above Manchester Airport - the green, GREEN, fields - so very green, after a week in Spain - the neat suburbs, the wonderful familiarity - if that feeling wasn't love I don't know what it was.
And it's not just geography. I love so much about England. Pubs. Comedy. The font on our road signs. Old fashioned road signs. The English English language. Cricket. Rugby. Most of our accents; the cadence to British speech. Baked goods. Real ale. Mild sarcasm. I love my country.
As I said before my country used to be Britain. My relationship with Scotland is more guarded nowadays. The view from Stirling Castle still stirs, but is it mine any more? Probably not. As someone alluded upthread, Scotland no longer loves me back.
There are gradations within England too of course. The North West and the Pennines arouse my love most of all; Sussex and Kent, on the other hand, lovely are they are, do not I flame the same emotions - they are English, but far from home in land and in accent.
That is what it means to me to love my country. I don't think these feelings are anything strange or anything that needs anypartocular justification. I don't feel any moral superiority to be English. I just feel extremely fortunate. But I'm sure a French man or a Bulgarian could articulate an altogether equivalent set of emotions for their own country.

Indeed. People feel homesick for objectively godawful parts of the world. It must be some sort of evolutionary defence mechanism, allowing us to populate the entire planet rather than all trying to live around the Mediterranean.

mwadams said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

I'm sure it was recognised and understood, they just won't say it.

I don't know why anyone would work in government PR, it seems soul destroying. As you say, calling on the winning side to stop winning is just idiotic to say.

They are incapable of admitting that we have been beaten. Not militarily, of course. We could've carried on bleeding people and resources in Afghanistan for as long as we were prepared to do so. But that's the point. The Taliban only had to hang on until we lost the will to continue. And that is what has happened.

Vietnam redux?

ydoethur said:

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

Military strategist also I see.

IanB2 said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.

I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.

Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.

Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.

Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.

But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.

Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.

I really cannot imagine what loving a country would feel like. I think there's a lot in the adage, Never love anything that isn't capable of loving you back.

Well that's an interesting point. What do people who say they "love" their country actually mean by it? Could be a benign sort of thing, or it could be a bit yucky. Depends.

I love my country.
I like many other countries. I could happily gaze out on Lake Garda for hours, I marvel at Prague or Amsterdam, I am exhilarated by the endless woods of North America. But I don't love them for they are not mine; they are not home.
But give me the view of Lancashire from Rivington Pike, or Cheshire from Shutlingsloe, or Sheffield as you come in from the Peak District, or the soft undulations of Devon, or the Yorkshire Dales, or any view at all in the Lake District, and it is genuine lump-in-the-throat stuff.
I used to often visit relatives in southern Spain. That moment when the plane descended through the clouds above Manchester Airport - the green, GREEN, fields - so very green, after a week in Spain - the neat suburbs, the wonderful familiarity - if that feeling wasn't love I don't know what it was.
And it's not just geography. I love so much about England. Pubs. Comedy. The font on our road signs. Old fashioned road signs. The English English language. Cricket. Rugby. Most of our accents; the cadence to British speech. Baked goods. Real ale. Mild sarcasm. I love my country.
As I said before my country used to be Britain. My relationship with Scotland is more guarded nowadays. The view from Stirling Castle still stirs, but is it mine any more? Probably not. As someone alluded upthread, Scotland no longer loves me back.
There are gradations within England too of course. The North West and the Pennines arouse my love most of all; Sussex and Kent, on the other hand, lovely are they are, do not I flame the same emotions - they are English, but far from home in land and in accent.
That is what it means to me to love my country. I don't think these feelings are anything strange or anything that needs anypartocular justification. I don't feel any moral superiority to be English. I just feel extremely fortunate. But I'm sure a French man or a Bulgarian could articulate an altogether equivalent set of emotions for their own country.

Indeed. People feel homesick for objectively godawful parts of the world. It must be some sort of evolutionary defence mechanism, allowing us to populate the entire planet rather than all trying to live around the Mediterranean.

You wont feel homesick when you see the Hundred on tv.. you will just feel sick.

Carnyx said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic

I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.

I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.

It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.

Can’t be arsed

Not acceptable. I'm waiting.

I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There

You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously

You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.

OK, I'll have a go at this.
When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).

I miss that.

Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.

That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.

But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.

*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.

At least you have tried. And all the more credit.

interestingly, the Labour argument would give far more importance to Livingston - that a working class person in Livingston has everything in common with one in, say, Luton, and far more so than with, say, a Scottish Tory.

Also - the Scottish Tories were a separate party up to about 1955 - the Unionist Party - but that was Union with Ireland as much as England. Still, that nicely illustrates your thesis.

Well that's an interesting point - perhaps once upon a time the Labour Party would have seen the identity of a working class person from Luton to be equivalent to that of one from Livingston - just as a Tory would have seen a middle class person from Cheadle as sharing the same interests as one from Newton Mearns. But since the 90s the Labour Party pushed the angle that the identity of the working class person from Livinsgton was Scottish, and that he was being ill-served by being in a unitary state (which was often governed by the Conservatives) - and thus a Scottish Parliament was necessary. And we all know what happened as a result.

Mexicanpete said:

.

ydoethur said:

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

Asking the Taliban to end their campaign of violence is rather a quaint, if somewhat naive and overly optimistic request.

Still, if one doesn't ask...

Its bullshit speak..

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

I'm sure it was recognised and understood, they just won't say it.

I don't know why anyone would work in government PR, it seems soul destroying. As you say, calling on the winning side to stop winning is just idiotic to say.

The problem is not that they can’t say it, it’s that they’ve said something demonstrably untrue.

There is an obvious military solution to Afghanistan’s current situation. A total Taleban victory. Which, to judge from the last 72 hours, is what is about to happen.

The fact that it is a very bad solution indeed for everyone other than the mullahs of the Taleban isn’t a military problem.

I’m in a difficult situation here because I never thought we should have invaded in 2001 anyway. I didn’t see what we could achieve or how we could achieve it.

And unfortunately, after twenty years of fighting that has cost thousands of lives, damaged Afghanistan further, and spread instability into other countries around, we’re back where we started.

Not at al. Now they play cricket.

ydoethur said:

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

According to this tweet:

https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1424059898753548291

"Why is Biden leaving? "We have to leave so everything is completely forgotten by the midterms""

Biden is a lot more ruthless than Trump. When Trump sacked John Bolton for warmogering, he kept saying "You don't have to kill people. You don't always have to kill people". He had a peaceful four years with very few foreign deaths.

Biden isn't as squeamish. He thinks there will be a lot of carnage but he doesn't care because he thinks Americans will have forgotten it all by midterms.

Candy said:

ydoethur said:

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

According to this tweet:

https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1424059898753548291

"Why is Biden leaving? "We have to leave so everything is completely forgotten by the midterms""

Biden is a lot more ruthless than Trump. When Trump sacked John Bolton for warmogering, he kept saying "You don't have to kill people. You don't always have to kill people". He had a peaceful four years with very few foreign deaths.

Biden isn't as squeamish. He thinks there will be a lot of carnage but he doesn't care because he thinks Americans will have forgotten it all by midterms.

I thought that it was Trump who arranged the withdrawal? Under an agreement with the Taleban that they would be nice?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51674103

Earlier I posted an alternative Olympic medal table where only medals in different sports were counted. I actually think some of the groupings of events into sports is unfair (especially track and field), so I've regrouped the following:

Remove BMX freestyle from cycling
Split up Canoe sprint and slalom
Combine multi-discipline events: triathlon, modern pentathlon, heptathlon and decathlon
Split track and field into:
Walking
Running (800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, and Marathon)
Sprinting (100m, 200m, 400m, 100/110m hurdles, 400m hurdles, and relays)
Jumping (long, high, triple)
Pole vaulting
Throwing (discuss, shot, hammer, and javelin)

This gives the following table (diff is to the official table):

Rank, Diff, Team, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Total
1. (0), United States, 17, 18, 15, 30
2. (0), China, 13, 14, 10, 21
3. (0), Japan, 11, 13, 13, 20
4. (+1), ROC, 10, 13, 10, 19
5. (-1), Great Britain, 9, 12, 18, 21
6. (+3), Germany, 8, 10, 9, 17
7. (+3), Italy, 8, 7, 11, 18
8. (0), France, 7, 8, 8, 15
9. (-3), Australia, 7, 5, 12, 19
10. (+1), Canada, 7, 4, 8, 13
11. (+1), Brazil, 7, 4, 6, 13
12. (-5), Netherlands, 5, 7, 9, 12
13. (+2), Hungary, 4, 5, 6, 9
14. (+4), Czech Republic, 4, 4, 3, 7
15. (+5), Norway, 4, 2, 2, 8
16. (+6), Spain, 3, 7, 5, 14
17. (0), Poland, 3, 5, 4, 8
18. (+5), Sweden, 3, 5, 0, 6
19. (-6), New Zealand, 3, 4, 6, 11
19. (-3), South Korea, 3, 4, 6, 8
21. (-7), Cuba, 3, 3, 5, 8
22. (+3), Denmark, 3, 3, 3, 8
23. (+3), Croatia, 3, 3, 2, 5
24. (0), Switzerland, 3, 2, 5, 6
25. (+2), Iran, 3, 2, 1, 4
26. (+2), Serbia, 3, 1, 5, 7
27. (+2), Belgium, 3, 1, 3, 7
28. (+2), Bulgaria, 3, 1, 1, 5
28. (+3), Slovenia, 3, 1, 1, 4
30. (+2), Uzbekistan, 3, 0, 2, 5
31. (+3), Chinese Taipei, 2, 4, 6, 10
32. (+3), Turkey, 2, 2, 4, 6
33. (0), Georgia, 2, 2, 1, 3
34. (+2), Greece, 2, 1, 1, 4
35. (+3), Ecuador, 2, 1, 0, 2
36. (+3), Ireland, 2, 0, 2, 2
37. (+4), Qatar, 2, 0, 1, 3
38. (+6), Ukraine, 1, 6, 10, 12
39. (+9), India, 1, 2, 4, 6
40. (+5), Belarus, 1, 2, 3, 4
41. (+9), Slovakia, 1, 2, 1, 4
42. (+4), Romania, 1, 2, 0, 2
42. (+4), Venezuela, 1, 2, 0, 3
42. (+10), South Africa, 1, 2, 0, 2
45. (+8), Austria, 1, 1, 5, 6
46. (+3), Hong Kong, 1, 1, 3, 5
46. (+8), Egypt, 1, 1, 3, 4
48. (+7), Indonesia, 1, 1, 2, 2
48. (+8), Portugal, 1, 1, 2, 3
50. (-31), Kenya, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-29), Jamaica, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-14), Uganda, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (0), Philippines, 1, 1, 1, 2
50. (+6), Ethiopia, 1, 1, 1, 1
55. (+3), Tunisia, 1, 1, 0, 2
56. (-17), Israel, 1, 0, 2, 3
57. (+2), Estonia, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Fiji, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Latvia, 1, 0, 1, 2
57. (+2), Thailand, 1, 0, 1, 2
61. (-19), Bahamas, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (-19), Kosovo, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Bermuda, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Morocco, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Puerto Rico, 1, 0, 0, 1

I think this better reflects how good the Americans are. And we can take heart from tying China in terms of medalling in different sports.

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.

I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.

Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.

Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.

Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.

But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.

Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.

I'll be interested to see what you find.

A PB pedantry: 'metro' is (I believe) yoof-speak for metrosexual. No doubt the chap in question is well-groomed, but perhaps you mean metropolitan?

Yes, metropolitan. Touch of metrosexual too, as it happens, but that's by the by.

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

I'm sure it was recognised and understood, they just won't say it.

I don't know why anyone would work in government PR, it seems soul destroying. As you say, calling on the winning side to stop winning is just idiotic to say.

The problem is not that they can’t say it, it’s that they’ve said something demonstrably untrue.

There is an obvious military solution to Afghanistan’s current situation. A total Taleban victory. Which, to judge from the last 72 hours, is what is about to happen.

The fact that it is a very bad solution indeed for everyone other than the mullahs of the Taleban isn’t a military problem.

I’m in a difficult situation here because I never thought we should have invaded in 2001 anyway. I didn’t see what we could achieve or how we could achieve it.

And unfortunately, after twenty years of fighting that has cost thousands of lives, damaged Afghanistan further, and spread instability into other countries around, we’re back where we started.

Not at al. Now they play cricket.

Well, they played cricket before, except for a brief hiatus when the Taleban banned it. Just not to the current level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_national_cricket_team

StuartDickson said:

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic

I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.

I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.

It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.

Can’t be arsed

Not acceptable. I'm waiting.

I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There

You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously

You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.

OK, I'll have a go at this.
When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).

I miss that.

Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.

That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.

But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.

*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.

A very insightful post. When I think of England, Italy or Greece, I too think of the nice bits.

But the most insightful bit is this: “… even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales.”

The Union started as a transaction, and it’s twilight years are dominated by transactional politics. It was probably largely transactional during most of the intervening years. It is likely that the English did buy the myth of one country. Few others did.

The Union, most successful when it interfered little and cared less about how Scotland ran itself.

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

Gordon bloody Bennet.

Where do they dig these imbeciles up?

Afghanistan troop withdrawal a strategic mistake, warns ex-general
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

(No, not that, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s this.)

‘A UK Government spokeswoman said: "We recognise that the security situation in Afghanistan is serious, and reports of the escalating violence are extremely disturbing.

We do not believe there is any military solution to Afghanistan's conflict, and call on the Taliban to end their campaign of violence and engage in meaningful dialogue with the Afghan government.

There needs to be a negotiated solution to ensure a lasting peace."’

How could anyone spout BS like that with a straight face?

Whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it should have been recognised and understood that in doing so the country was being handed back to the Taleban.

I'm sure it was recognised and understood, they just won't say it.

I don't know why anyone would work in government PR, it seems soul destroying. As you say, calling on the winning side to stop winning is just idiotic to say.

The problem is not that they can’t say it, it’s that they’ve said something demonstrably untrue.

There is an obvious military solution to Afghanistan’s current situation. A total Taleban victory. Which, to judge from the last 72 hours, is what is about to happen.

The fact that it is a very bad solution indeed for everyone other than the mullahs of the Taleban isn’t a military problem.

I’m in a difficult situation here because I never thought we should have invaded in 2001 anyway. I didn’t see what we could achieve or how we could achieve it.

And unfortunately, after twenty years of fighting that has cost thousands of lives, damaged Afghanistan further, and spread instability into other countries around, we’re back where we started.

Not at al. Now they play cricket.

Not for much longer. I fear.

tlg86 said:

Earlier I posted an alternative Olympic medal table where only medals in different sports were counted. I actually think some of the groupings of events into sports is unfair (especially track and field), so I've regrouped the following:

Remove BMX freestyle from cycling
Split up Canoe sprint and slalom
Combine multi-discipline events: triathlon, modern pentathlon, heptathlon and decathlon
Split track and field into:
Walking
Running (800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, and Marathon)
Sprinting (100m, 200m, 400m, 100/110m hurdles, 400m hurdles, and relays)
Jumping (long, high, triple)
Pole vaulting
Throwing (discuss, shot, hammer, and javelin)

This gives the following table (diff is to the official table):

Rank, Diff, Team, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Total
1. (0), United States, 17, 18, 15, 30
2. (0), China, 13, 14, 10, 21
3. (0), Japan, 11, 13, 13, 20
4. (+1), ROC, 10, 13, 10, 19
5. (-1), Great Britain, 9, 12, 18, 21
6. (+3), Germany, 8, 10, 9, 17
7. (+3), Italy, 8, 7, 11, 18
8. (0), France, 7, 8, 8, 15
9. (-3), Australia, 7, 5, 12, 19
10. (+1), Canada, 7, 4, 8, 13
11. (+1), Brazil, 7, 4, 6, 13
12. (-5), Netherlands, 5, 7, 9, 12
13. (+2), Hungary, 4, 5, 6, 9
14. (+4), Czech Republic, 4, 4, 3, 7
15. (+5), Norway, 4, 2, 2, 8
16. (+6), Spain, 3, 7, 5, 14
17. (0), Poland, 3, 5, 4, 8
18. (+5), Sweden, 3, 5, 0, 6
19. (-6), New Zealand, 3, 4, 6, 11
19. (-3), South Korea, 3, 4, 6, 8
21. (-7), Cuba, 3, 3, 5, 8
22. (+3), Denmark, 3, 3, 3, 8
23. (+3), Croatia, 3, 3, 2, 5
24. (0), Switzerland, 3, 2, 5, 6
25. (+2), Iran, 3, 2, 1, 4
26. (+2), Serbia, 3, 1, 5, 7
27. (+2), Belgium, 3, 1, 3, 7
28. (+2), Bulgaria, 3, 1, 1, 5
28. (+3), Slovenia, 3, 1, 1, 4
30. (+2), Uzbekistan, 3, 0, 2, 5
31. (+3), Chinese Taipei, 2, 4, 6, 10
32. (+3), Turkey, 2, 2, 4, 6
33. (0), Georgia, 2, 2, 1, 3
34. (+2), Greece, 2, 1, 1, 4
35. (+3), Ecuador, 2, 1, 0, 2
36. (+3), Ireland, 2, 0, 2, 2
37. (+4), Qatar, 2, 0, 1, 3
38. (+6), Ukraine, 1, 6, 10, 12
39. (+9), India, 1, 2, 4, 6
40. (+5), Belarus, 1, 2, 3, 4
41. (+9), Slovakia, 1, 2, 1, 4
42. (+4), Romania, 1, 2, 0, 2
42. (+4), Venezuela, 1, 2, 0, 3
42. (+10), South Africa, 1, 2, 0, 2
45. (+8), Austria, 1, 1, 5, 6
46. (+3), Hong Kong, 1, 1, 3, 5
46. (+8), Egypt, 1, 1, 3, 4
48. (+7), Indonesia, 1, 1, 2, 2
48. (+8), Portugal, 1, 1, 2, 3
50. (-31), Kenya, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-29), Jamaica, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-14), Uganda, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (0), Philippines, 1, 1, 1, 2
50. (+6), Ethiopia, 1, 1, 1, 1
55. (+3), Tunisia, 1, 1, 0, 2
56. (-17), Israel, 1, 0, 2, 3
57. (+2), Estonia, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Fiji, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Latvia, 1, 0, 1, 2
57. (+2), Thailand, 1, 0, 1, 2
61. (-19), Bahamas, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (-19), Kosovo, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Bermuda, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Morocco, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Puerto Rico, 1, 0, 0, 1

I think this better reflects how good the Americans are. And we can take heart from tying China in terms of medalling in different sports.

The medal table (whether this or the official one) is a little sad in a way. Congrats to team GB and the overall strategy of UK sport and the sport bodies over the last two decades to get it. However one cannot deny it is money that buys medals whether that is fully focused grants from gvernement/lottery or just wider national or family/individual wealth.

It shows that if you are a sporting youngster in Pakistan,India ,Africa or indeed South America or many parts of Asia you will not have the chance to be the best . Whilst this may not be the most pressing problem in Africa or India say it does show the immense imbalance in general life opportunity across all sectors - sport , education, freedom, career etc and its a pity

Think the Afghan government will either be possible, dead or in exile v shortly

Are the Talinban sponsored by iran. Maybe Itmean needs a warning that will ne carried out...if not heeded...

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Earlier I posted an alternative Olympic medal table where only medals in different sports were counted. I actually think some of the groupings of events into sports is unfair (especially track and field), so I've regrouped the following:

Remove BMX freestyle from cycling
Split up Canoe sprint and slalom
Combine multi-discipline events: triathlon, modern pentathlon, heptathlon and decathlon
Split track and field into:
Walking
Running (800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, and Marathon)
Sprinting (100m, 200m, 400m, 100/110m hurdles, 400m hurdles, and relays)
Jumping (long, high, triple)
Pole vaulting
Throwing (discuss, shot, hammer, and javelin)

This gives the following table (diff is to the official table):

Rank, Diff, Team, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Total
1. (0), United States, 17, 18, 15, 30
2. (0), China, 13, 14, 10, 21
3. (0), Japan, 11, 13, 13, 20
4. (+1), ROC, 10, 13, 10, 19
5. (-1), Great Britain, 9, 12, 18, 21
6. (+3), Germany, 8, 10, 9, 17
7. (+3), Italy, 8, 7, 11, 18
8. (0), France, 7, 8, 8, 15
9. (-3), Australia, 7, 5, 12, 19
10. (+1), Canada, 7, 4, 8, 13
11. (+1), Brazil, 7, 4, 6, 13
12. (-5), Netherlands, 5, 7, 9, 12
13. (+2), Hungary, 4, 5, 6, 9
14. (+4), Czech Republic, 4, 4, 3, 7
15. (+5), Norway, 4, 2, 2, 8
16. (+6), Spain, 3, 7, 5, 14
17. (0), Poland, 3, 5, 4, 8
18. (+5), Sweden, 3, 5, 0, 6
19. (-6), New Zealand, 3, 4, 6, 11
19. (-3), South Korea, 3, 4, 6, 8
21. (-7), Cuba, 3, 3, 5, 8
22. (+3), Denmark, 3, 3, 3, 8
23. (+3), Croatia, 3, 3, 2, 5
24. (0), Switzerland, 3, 2, 5, 6
25. (+2), Iran, 3, 2, 1, 4
26. (+2), Serbia, 3, 1, 5, 7
27. (+2), Belgium, 3, 1, 3, 7
28. (+2), Bulgaria, 3, 1, 1, 5
28. (+3), Slovenia, 3, 1, 1, 4
30. (+2), Uzbekistan, 3, 0, 2, 5
31. (+3), Chinese Taipei, 2, 4, 6, 10
32. (+3), Turkey, 2, 2, 4, 6
33. (0), Georgia, 2, 2, 1, 3
34. (+2), Greece, 2, 1, 1, 4
35. (+3), Ecuador, 2, 1, 0, 2
36. (+3), Ireland, 2, 0, 2, 2
37. (+4), Qatar, 2, 0, 1, 3
38. (+6), Ukraine, 1, 6, 10, 12
39. (+9), India, 1, 2, 4, 6
40. (+5), Belarus, 1, 2, 3, 4
41. (+9), Slovakia, 1, 2, 1, 4
42. (+4), Romania, 1, 2, 0, 2
42. (+4), Venezuela, 1, 2, 0, 3
42. (+10), South Africa, 1, 2, 0, 2
45. (+8), Austria, 1, 1, 5, 6
46. (+3), Hong Kong, 1, 1, 3, 5
46. (+8), Egypt, 1, 1, 3, 4
48. (+7), Indonesia, 1, 1, 2, 2
48. (+8), Portugal, 1, 1, 2, 3
50. (-31), Kenya, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-29), Jamaica, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-14), Uganda, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (0), Philippines, 1, 1, 1, 2
50. (+6), Ethiopia, 1, 1, 1, 1
55. (+3), Tunisia, 1, 1, 0, 2
56. (-17), Israel, 1, 0, 2, 3
57. (+2), Estonia, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Fiji, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Latvia, 1, 0, 1, 2
57. (+2), Thailand, 1, 0, 1, 2
61. (-19), Bahamas, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (-19), Kosovo, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Bermuda, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Morocco, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Puerto Rico, 1, 0, 0, 1

I think this better reflects how good the Americans are. And we can take heart from tying China in terms of medalling in different sports.

Seems like utter bollocks to me. Why split athletics like that? Why combine modern pentathlon, triathlon , heptathlon and decathlon? Why split canoe sprint and slalom (and yet keep equestrian dressage with jumping)?

Surely you could split it all up in whatever way to wished to make whatever point you were looking to make?

I thought about equestrian, but I think the involvement of a horse means that it's fair enough to keep it altogether.

I think the athletics deserves to be split up more because the disciplines are very different. The sprinting/running are more different than say the different distances in the swimming, in my opinion.

The two types of canoeing seem completely different to me. Perhaps there's a case for sticking the canoe sprint with the rowing as they are a bit similar.

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

Candy said:

According to the following:

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/

Antibodies ;produced by natural infection attack a different part of the spike protein in the virus than antibodies produced by mRNA vaccines.

Presumably people who got infected and recovered, and then got vaccinated, have two different sorts of antibodies tackling different parts of the spike protein.

And people who have been vaccinated but still get mildly ill when encountering the virus are ill because the vaccine is doing a partial job and they have to wait tlln andpuoiklborurmi

kinabalu said:

Candy said:

kinabalu said:

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there.

A freeborn Englishman - David Cameron - gave the Scots their referendum in 2014, to the horror of the Europeans (Matteo Renzi declared Cameron was "mad").

The Scots voted to remain in the UK. The old argument that being part of the UK was a stitch-up agreed amongst barrons 300 odd years ago is gone. Being part of the UK is now the settled will of the Scots as affirmed by a referendum with an 84% turnout.

The issue is that the losers refuse to accept the result (much like Trump refused to accept the result of the US 2020 election and remainers refused to accept the result of the 2016 EU referendum).

What do you do about anti-democrats who refuse to accept the results of referendums and general elections?

It was accepted but Brexit put it back on the table. That supplied a rationale for another vote so long as this was franked at the polls in a Scottish election. Which it was - just. We now await developments.

Accepted by whom? Not the Scottish voters who are consitently saying No. The SNP failed to get a majority in the Scottish elections in May. The Scots failed to reject AZ like the rest of the EU (if they trusted the EU above the UK, they'd have refused the AZ vaccine and expressed extravagant admiration for Ursula von der Leyen).

There is no indication that they don't abide by the result of the 2014 referendum.

Er, you're forgetting that the Scottish Greens also had an independence referendum in their manifesto and that there is therefore a comfortable majority at Holyrood with the SNP for another referendum. As there is in the Scottish MPs.

And Yes polling latest is higher than in 2014, not lower. (Ignoring HYUFD's various interpretations.)

They’re not “forgetting”. They are intentionally trying to mislead. The problem is that it is very transparent.

I'm being polite. And also ironic. In the Aye right mould.

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Like I just said to KLE4 it's not that an English Leaver can't be a Unionist. Course they can, eg for the reasons he suggests - they love the UK, want it free of the EU, want it not to break up via Sindy. Such people in their own way love Scotland. They love Scotland as part of the Union. They empathize with the Sovereignty argument for Sindy - how could they not, as Leavers? - but feel We Are Better Together, hope the Scots feel the same way, are prepared to argue the case for the Union. What I'm talking about is not that sentiment, it's something else entirely, and it is very common, yes, which is why I'm interested in the mental place it's coming from. Not calling it "Sindy Derangement Syndrome", or any of that nonsense, I am purely and genuinely interested.

I think part of it is that old chestnut, the ability to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, has chosen FREEDOM!
What's that you say, part of this isle and a bit of another isle haven't chosen freedom? Well, those smelly poohpants can just shut up and get with the program.

Provinces v London in the mix too. Because we down here in the Big City also gave Freedom the finger.

Sorry, forgot you bloody metropolitan elitists! Yep, not feeling a lot of love from the lovers of Britain for these type of Brits.

Too right. We're first for the chop, I sometimes feel, as soon as they find their Robespierre. Although the poster I'm seeking to probe is in fact as Metro as they come. And we now find out - today - that Isam shops Waitrose. So it's all very very messy.

But back to my probe. If I can put it another way which might make it clearer for people.

Consider the PB mirror image of what I'm talking about in Leon and others. That would be me - an English Remainer with little time for emotional Sovereignty arguments - feeling antagonistically opposed to the arguments for the Union put forward by Scottish posters such as DavidL and LostPassword.

If such were the case - which it isn't - it would be indicative of something funny going on in my head and I'd have to explain myself.

Which is all I'm looking for here. An explanation. We've had "Cos I love Britain" but I sense that's pretty much a "name, rank and serial number" gambit.

I'll be interested to see what you find.

A PB pedantry: 'metro' is (I believe) yoof-speak for metrosexual. No doubt the chap in question is well-groomed, but perhaps you mean metropolitan?

Yes, metropolitan. Touch of metrosexual too, as it happens, but that's by the by.

It's that cravat that tips you over.

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Earlier I posted an alternative Olympic medal table where only medals in different sports were counted. I actually think some of the groupings of events into sports is unfair (especially track and field), so I've regrouped the following:

Remove BMX freestyle from cycling
Split up Canoe sprint and slalom
Combine multi-discipline events: triathlon, modern pentathlon, heptathlon and decathlon
Split track and field into:
Walking
Running (800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, and Marathon)
Sprinting (100m, 200m, 400m, 100/110m hurdles, 400m hurdles, and relays)
Jumping (long, high, triple)
Pole vaulting
Throwing (discuss, shot, hammer, and javelin)

This gives the following table (diff is to the official table):

Rank, Diff, Team, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Total
1. (0), United States, 17, 18, 15, 30
2. (0), China, 13, 14, 10, 21
3. (0), Japan, 11, 13, 13, 20
4. (+1), ROC, 10, 13, 10, 19
5. (-1), Great Britain, 9, 12, 18, 21
6. (+3), Germany, 8, 10, 9, 17
7. (+3), Italy, 8, 7, 11, 18
8. (0), France, 7, 8, 8, 15
9. (-3), Australia, 7, 5, 12, 19
10. (+1), Canada, 7, 4, 8, 13
11. (+1), Brazil, 7, 4, 6, 13
12. (-5), Netherlands, 5, 7, 9, 12
13. (+2), Hungary, 4, 5, 6, 9
14. (+4), Czech Republic, 4, 4, 3, 7
15. (+5), Norway, 4, 2, 2, 8
16. (+6), Spain, 3, 7, 5, 14
17. (0), Poland, 3, 5, 4, 8
18. (+5), Sweden, 3, 5, 0, 6
19. (-6), New Zealand, 3, 4, 6, 11
19. (-3), South Korea, 3, 4, 6, 8
21. (-7), Cuba, 3, 3, 5, 8
22. (+3), Denmark, 3, 3, 3, 8
23. (+3), Croatia, 3, 3, 2, 5
24. (0), Switzerland, 3, 2, 5, 6
25. (+2), Iran, 3, 2, 1, 4
26. (+2), Serbia, 3, 1, 5, 7
27. (+2), Belgium, 3, 1, 3, 7
28. (+2), Bulgaria, 3, 1, 1, 5
28. (+3), Slovenia, 3, 1, 1, 4
30. (+2), Uzbekistan, 3, 0, 2, 5
31. (+3), Chinese Taipei, 2, 4, 6, 10
32. (+3), Turkey, 2, 2, 4, 6
33. (0), Georgia, 2, 2, 1, 3
34. (+2), Greece, 2, 1, 1, 4
35. (+3), Ecuador, 2, 1, 0, 2
36. (+3), Ireland, 2, 0, 2, 2
37. (+4), Qatar, 2, 0, 1, 3
38. (+6), Ukraine, 1, 6, 10, 12
39. (+9), India, 1, 2, 4, 6
40. (+5), Belarus, 1, 2, 3, 4
41. (+9), Slovakia, 1, 2, 1, 4
42. (+4), Romania, 1, 2, 0, 2
42. (+4), Venezuela, 1, 2, 0, 3
42. (+10), South Africa, 1, 2, 0, 2
45. (+8), Austria, 1, 1, 5, 6
46. (+3), Hong Kong, 1, 1, 3, 5
46. (+8), Egypt, 1, 1, 3, 4
48. (+7), Indonesia, 1, 1, 2, 2
48. (+8), Portugal, 1, 1, 2, 3
50. (-31), Kenya, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-29), Jamaica, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-14), Uganda, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (0), Philippines, 1, 1, 1, 2
50. (+6), Ethiopia, 1, 1, 1, 1
55. (+3), Tunisia, 1, 1, 0, 2
56. (-17), Israel, 1, 0, 2, 3
57. (+2), Estonia, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Fiji, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Latvia, 1, 0, 1, 2
57. (+2), Thailand, 1, 0, 1, 2
61. (-19), Bahamas, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (-19), Kosovo, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Bermuda, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Morocco, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Puerto Rico, 1, 0, 0, 1

I think this better reflects how good the Americans are. And we can take heart from tying China in terms of medalling in different sports.

Seems like utter bollocks to me. Why split athletics like that? Why combine modern pentathlon, triathlon , heptathlon and decathlon? Why split canoe sprint and slalom (and yet keep equestrian dressage with jumping)?

Surely you could split it all up in whatever way to wished to make whatever point you were looking to make?

I thought about equestrian, but I think the involvement of a horse means that it's fair enough to keep it altogether.

I think the athletics deserves to be split up more because the disciplines are very different. The sprinting/running are more different than say the different distances in the swimming, in my opinion.

The two types of canoeing seem completely different to me. Perhaps there's a case for sticking the canoe sprint with the rowing as they are a bit similar.

Good points although think "fighting" should be more grouped - Judo,wrestling and Karate are simalar for instance.Also think diving is more gymnastics than swimming

YoungTurk said:

If we wanted to make it a tatartodozen of plebiscites this century in England, after Brexit and AV, why not hold a referendum on building Hadrian's Wall 10 foot higher English independence? Winning the World Cup in 1966 as a non-independent country still smarts.

Rebuilding Hadrian's Wall would transfer Bigg Market on a Friday night to Scotland. I know we have the Byres Road in Glasgow, and Coogait in Edinburgh, but really.

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Vaguely on topic, the PB Scot Nits do same even angrier than normal, first Stuart Dickson goes full-on blood-and-soil measure-their-skulls Ethno-Nat, then the uniondivvie’s typical waspishness devolves to a faintly sad, rather bitter sourness, now even the peaceful malcolmg, who barely has a bad word for anyone, seems a little dyspeptic

I wonder if it is, partly, the above finding. The Brits have gone off referendums. Including indyrefs

What's just as intriguing is how a freeborn Englishman who advances Sovereignty as the reason they voted for Brexit can be so viscerally opposed to Scottish Independence given the Sovereignty argument is (at the very least) of equal relevance there. A great example of such a person would be you, of course, but there are plenty of others who exhibit the same (on the face of it) stark contradiction. I don't get this at all. The anti-SNP passion of it, I mean, in a Brexiteer. Makes no sense to me.

I could understand a position of "I hope they don't leave because I value their contribution to this Union that I love but at the end of the day it's up to them". I'd totally understand that or similar. It's exactly what one might expect the position of a Sovereignty loving English Brexiteer to be. But this does not appear to be the position with those I'm referring to. The sentiment is more that Independence for Scotland is a risible notion and the Scots have a cheek to even think about it.

It seems odd. I don't expect even PB pundits to exhibit a perfect consistency across their political views - in fact that's a sign of immaturity - but this anomaly here is quite common and it really sticks out. To me it does anyway. So any half decent explanation would be most welcome. I'm keen to learn.

Can’t be arsed

Not acceptable. I'm waiting.

I’m a patriotic Brit. I love Britain as it is. All 4 nations. I don’t want it broken up. There

You could have worked this out for yourself if you bothered to think rather than drone, pompously

You are Leon, but you're not the thin red line. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a line on which you would stand and fight, but not sure where that is and I'm not sure you know either. Admittedly I could say much the same about myself.

OK, I'll have a go at this.
When I was a child, we often went on holiday to Scotland. My first four summer holidays were to the Isle of Arran. Scotland felt more part of my life than the South of England. Scotland never felt abroad - the banknotes were a novelty but that was all. I had a board game called the Great Game of Britain - I've mentioned it before - and it was about my country, not my country and a few others. I liked that I was part of a country that included the Highlands of Scotland and Edinburgh* as well as the Lake District, Devon, the Peak District, Snowdonia ( to use just my own childhood mental geography of Great Britain).

I miss that.

Of course, on one level it doesn't matter. Liking somewhere doesn't mean a political union with it is a good idea. Scotland isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be any more difficult to go on holiday there after independence. But a country is more than a convenience, it's a shared idea and a shared ideal. My mother is Scottish, my grandmother was very Scottish indeed. I grew up British first, then English.

That's gone now sadly. I feel English, rather than British. Maybe Britishness never existed anyway outside of England but before 1998 the English didn't realise it. I don't blame the Scots - their identity is their choice - but even Scots unionists don't really believe in country called Britain, they believe in a country called Scotland whose interests are best served by a union with England and Wales. Meanwhile Scots nationalists seem to hold the same view of the UK that many on the Labour left have of Israel.

But I do miss the national identity I grew up with.

*It's always the nice bits people focus on isn't it? No unionists in England are dreamily thinking of Livingston when they extol the virtues of the Union, just as Remainers tend to wistfully think of Venice and Barcelona and rarely Nancy or Bochum.

Yes, that's pretty much it for me as well. I studied in Scotland between 88 and 96. Yes, some of b the differences were more the money, the Daily Record and it's doom headlines, the TV was slightly different, there was a different national history. But, it mostly felt like a bulked up version of the regionalism I already knew from the North rather than something qualitatively different.

I can see the political sense in, and am a supporter of, a proper right of self determination. I can see the political argument for separation.

But ultimately it will be the cultural divorce that will pain me more. I had a series of flag waving cards of Great British inventors as a kid and amongst the series were Logie Baird, Macadam, Dunlop. And Scotland will ultimately lose its English equivalent - Attenborough, Monty Python - name your poison from hundreds - they will no longer be yours (the SNP being another set of very anti BBC people is no accident).

I hadn't been to Dublin until a few years ago. I was in a cafe having breakfast and reading the paper. Whatever particular commonality with the Republic we ever had is long gone, any Irishness there might be in thistorical Brits is rarely acknowledged. Of course, Ireland's experience of Union is much different from Scotland's, even if historical injustices neither ended at the North Channel, nor the Solwsy Firth, nor even the Watford Gap.

But sitting in Dublin, feeling that bit of dislocation and thinking that Edinburgh might feel like this in 50 years, and the loss both ways that will entai, that saddens mel. It is more than leaving the EU.

Aslan said:

tlg86 said:

state_go_away said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Earlier I posted an alternative Olympic medal table where only medals in different sports were counted. I actually think some of the groupings of events into sports is unfair (especially track and field), so I've regrouped the following:

Remove BMX freestyle from cycling
Split up Canoe sprint and slalom
Combine multi-discipline events: triathlon, modern pentathlon, heptathlon and decathlon
Split track and field into:
Walking
Running (800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, and Marathon)
Sprinting (100m, 200m, 400m, 100/110m hurdles, 400m hurdles, and relays)
Jumping (long, high, triple)
Pole vaulting
Throwing (discuss, shot, hammer, and javelin)

This gives the following table (diff is to the official table):

Rank, Diff, Team, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Total
1. (0), United States, 17, 18, 15, 30
2. (0), China, 13, 14, 10, 21
3. (0), Japan, 11, 13, 13, 20
4. (+1), ROC, 10, 13, 10, 19
5. (-1), Great Britain, 9, 12, 18, 21
6. (+3), Germany, 8, 10, 9, 17
7. (+3), Italy, 8, 7, 11, 18
8. (0), France, 7, 8, 8, 15
9. (-3), Australia, 7, 5, 12, 19
10. (+1), Canada, 7, 4, 8, 13
11. (+1), Brazil, 7, 4, 6, 13
12. (-5), Netherlands, 5, 7, 9, 12
13. (+2), Hungary, 4, 5, 6, 9
14. (+4), Czech Republic, 4, 4, 3, 7
15. (+5), Norway, 4, 2, 2, 8
16. (+6), Spain, 3, 7, 5, 14
17. (0), Poland, 3, 5, 4, 8
18. (+5), Sweden, 3, 5, 0, 6
19. (-6), New Zealand, 3, 4, 6, 11
19. (-3), South Korea, 3, 4, 6, 8
21. (-7), Cuba, 3, 3, 5, 8
22. (+3), Denmark, 3, 3, 3, 8
23. (+3), Croatia, 3, 3, 2, 5
24. (0), Switzerland, 3, 2, 5, 6
25. (+2), Iran, 3, 2, 1, 4
26. (+2), Serbia, 3, 1, 5, 7
27. (+2), Belgium, 3, 1, 3, 7
28. (+2), Bulgaria, 3, 1, 1, 5
28. (+3), Slovenia, 3, 1, 1, 4
30. (+2), Uzbekistan, 3, 0, 2, 5
31. (+3), Chinese Taipei, 2, 4, 6, 10
32. (+3), Turkey, 2, 2, 4, 6
33. (0), Georgia, 2, 2, 1, 3
34. (+2), Greece, 2, 1, 1, 4
35. (+3), Ecuador, 2, 1, 0, 2
36. (+3), Ireland, 2, 0, 2, 2
37. (+4), Qatar, 2, 0, 1, 3
38. (+6), Ukraine, 1, 6, 10, 12
39. (+9), India, 1, 2, 4, 6
40. (+5), Belarus, 1, 2, 3, 4
41. (+9), Slovakia, 1, 2, 1, 4
42. (+4), Romania, 1, 2, 0, 2
42. (+4), Venezuela, 1, 2, 0, 3
42. (+10), South Africa, 1, 2, 0, 2
45. (+8), Austria, 1, 1, 5, 6
46. (+3), Hong Kong, 1, 1, 3, 5
46. (+8), Egypt, 1, 1, 3, 4
48. (+7), Indonesia, 1, 1, 2, 2
48. (+8), Portugal, 1, 1, 2, 3
50. (-31), Kenya, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-29), Jamaica, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-14), Uganda, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (0), Philippines, 1, 1, 1, 2
50. (+6), Ethiopia, 1, 1, 1, 1
55. (+3), Tunisia, 1, 1, 0, 2
56. (-17), Israel, 1, 0, 2, 3
57. (+2), Estonia, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Fiji, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Latvia, 1, 0, 1, 2
57. (+2), Thailand, 1, 0, 1, 2
61. (-19), Bahamas, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (-19), Kosovo, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Bermuda, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Morocco, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Puerto Rico, 1, 0, 0, 1

I think this better reflects how good the Americans are. And we can take heart from tying China in terms of medalling in different sports.

Seems like utter bollocks to me. Why split athletics like that? Why combine modern pentathlon, triathlon , heptathlon and decathlon? Why split canoe sprint and slalom (and yet keep equestrian dressage with jumping)?

Surely you could split it all up in whatever way to wished to make whatever point you were looking to make?

I thought about equestrian, but I think the involvement of a horse means that it's fair enough to keep it altogether.

I think the athletics deserves to be split up more because the disciplines are very different. The sprinting/running are more different than say the different distances in the swimming, in my opinion.

The two types of canoeing seem completely different to me. Perhaps there's a case for sticking the canoe sprint with the rowing as they are a bit similar.

Good points although think "fighting" should be more grouped - Judo,wrestling and Karate are simalar for instance.Also think diving is more gymnastics than swimming

Diving is separate from swimming and I think it deserves to be its own category.

I know little about the fighting sports and whether they are sufficiently similar to be grouped. My instinct is that they should be separate. As an aside, I think Taekwondo is the best of those types of sports.

Having dressage as a sport is ridiculous.

I tell you what , you try it and see how you get on.....

Aslan said:

tlg86 said:

state_go_away said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Earlier I posted an alternative Olympic medal table where only medals in different sports were counted. I actually think some of the groupings of events into sports is unfair (especially track and field), so I've regrouped the following:

Remove BMX freestyle from cycling
Split up Canoe sprint and slalom
Combine multi-discipline events: triathlon, modern pentathlon, heptathlon and decathlon
Split track and field into:
Walking
Running (800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, and Marathon)
Sprinting (100m, 200m, 400m, 100/110m hurdles, 400m hurdles, and relays)
Jumping (long, high, triple)
Pole vaulting
Throwing (discuss, shot, hammer, and javelin)

This gives the following table (diff is to the official table):

Rank, Diff, Team, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Total
1. (0), United States, 17, 18, 15, 30
2. (0), China, 13, 14, 10, 21
3. (0), Japan, 11, 13, 13, 20
4. (+1), ROC, 10, 13, 10, 19
5. (-1), Great Britain, 9, 12, 18, 21
6. (+3), Germany, 8, 10, 9, 17
7. (+3), Italy, 8, 7, 11, 18
8. (0), France, 7, 8, 8, 15
9. (-3), Australia, 7, 5, 12, 19
10. (+1), Canada, 7, 4, 8, 13
11. (+1), Brazil, 7, 4, 6, 13
12. (-5), Netherlands, 5, 7, 9, 12
13. (+2), Hungary, 4, 5, 6, 9
14. (+4), Czech Republic, 4, 4, 3, 7
15. (+5), Norway, 4, 2, 2, 8
16. (+6), Spain, 3, 7, 5, 14
17. (0), Poland, 3, 5, 4, 8
18. (+5), Sweden, 3, 5, 0, 6
19. (-6), New Zealand, 3, 4, 6, 11
19. (-3), South Korea, 3, 4, 6, 8
21. (-7), Cuba, 3, 3, 5, 8
22. (+3), Denmark, 3, 3, 3, 8
23. (+3), Croatia, 3, 3, 2, 5
24. (0), Switzerland, 3, 2, 5, 6
25. (+2), Iran, 3, 2, 1, 4
26. (+2), Serbia, 3, 1, 5, 7
27. (+2), Belgium, 3, 1, 3, 7
28. (+2), Bulgaria, 3, 1, 1, 5
28. (+3), Slovenia, 3, 1, 1, 4
30. (+2), Uzbekistan, 3, 0, 2, 5
31. (+3), Chinese Taipei, 2, 4, 6, 10
32. (+3), Turkey, 2, 2, 4, 6
33. (0), Georgia, 2, 2, 1, 3
34. (+2), Greece, 2, 1, 1, 4
35. (+3), Ecuador, 2, 1, 0, 2
36. (+3), Ireland, 2, 0, 2, 2
37. (+4), Qatar, 2, 0, 1, 3
38. (+6), Ukraine, 1, 6, 10, 12
39. (+9), India, 1, 2, 4, 6
40. (+5), Belarus, 1, 2, 3, 4
41. (+9), Slovakia, 1, 2, 1, 4
42. (+4), Romania, 1, 2, 0, 2
42. (+4), Venezuela, 1, 2, 0, 3
42. (+10), South Africa, 1, 2, 0, 2
45. (+8), Austria, 1, 1, 5, 6
46. (+3), Hong Kong, 1, 1, 3, 5
46. (+8), Egypt, 1, 1, 3, 4
48. (+7), Indonesia, 1, 1, 2, 2
48. (+8), Portugal, 1, 1, 2, 3
50. (-31), Kenya, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-29), Jamaica, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (-14), Uganda, 1, 1, 1, 1
50. (0), Philippines, 1, 1, 1, 2
50. (+6), Ethiopia, 1, 1, 1, 1
55. (+3), Tunisia, 1, 1, 0, 2
56. (-17), Israel, 1, 0, 2, 3
57. (+2), Estonia, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Fiji, 1, 0, 1, 1
57. (+2), Latvia, 1, 0, 1, 2
57. (+2), Thailand, 1, 0, 1, 2
61. (-19), Bahamas, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (-19), Kosovo, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Bermuda, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Morocco, 1, 0, 0, 1
61. (+2), Puerto Rico, 1, 0, 0, 1

I think this better reflects how good the Americans are. And we can take heart from tying China in terms of medalling in different sports.

Seems like utter bollocks to me. Why split athletics like that? Why combine modern pentathlon, triathlon , heptathlon and decathlon? Why split canoe sprint and slalom (and yet keep equestrian dressage with jumping)?

Surely you could split it all up in whatever way to wished to make whatever point you were looking to make?

I thought about equestrian, but I think the involvement of a horse means that it's fair enough to keep it altogether.

I think the athletics deserves to be split up more because the disciplines are very different. The sprinting/running are more different than say the different distances in the swimming, in my opinion.

The two types of canoeing seem completely different to me. Perhaps there's a case for sticking the canoe sprint with the rowing as they are a bit similar.

Good points although think "fighting" should be more grouped - Judo,wrestling and Karate are simalar for instance.Also think diving is more gymnastics than swimming

Diving is separate from swimming and I think it deserves to be its own category.

I know little about the fighting sports and whether they are sufficiently similar to be grouped. My instinct is that they should be separate. As an aside, I think Taekwondo is the best of those types of sports.

Having dressage as a sport is ridiculous.

That's a different argument!

Pulpstar said:

Think the Afghan government will either be possible, dead or in exile v shortly

I had a strange dream last night. I had been captured by the Taliban ( How? Why?). They assumed I was a Christian and attempted to convert me to Islam. I explained that I did not believe in God - God had not created Man but Man had created God. This confused them so they laid on a feast for me. Suspecting poison I only ate one grain of rice. In the ensuing dialogue I said that Muhammad was a Jew -this confused them even further. Then I woke up with a sense of achievement. What is that all about? Checking on Wikipedia today it seems that a number of the tribes of Arabia were indeed Jews. Others were polytheistic but some were monotheistic ( but which god?).

moonshine said:

Alistair said:

ydoethur said:

Alistair said:

Candy said:

Biden is a lot more ruthless than Trump. When Trump sacked John Bolton for warmogering, he kept saying "You don't have to kill people. You don't always have to kill people".He had a peaceful four years with very few foreign deaths

Absolute, utter nonsense.

Drone strikes under Trump exploded. And he removed the directive to collate and report civilian casualties.

In 3 years Trump carried out 20% more Drone Strikes than Obama managed in 8.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

He also assassinated Soleimani (can’t remember how to spell his name) which triggered several violent events, including the attacking of American bases and the shooting down of an airliner.

It's one of the most trite "I'm no fan of Trump but at least he did..." lines that gets trotted out by massive Trump fans trying to blend in.

It's repeated so often it has somehow become "common knowledge" amongst people who should know better and check their sauces.

Speaking of sauces. I can report that Leon’s Harare hot sauce is epic in a beef sandwich.

Told ya!

squareroot2 said:

Are the Talinban sponsored by iran. Maybe Itmean needs a warning that will carried out...if not heeded...

No, they are Sunni, Iran is Shia