Response by Cameron to Warsi. I realise that this must not have been an easy decision for you to make and very much regret that we were not able to speak about your decision beforehand.
I understand your strength of feeling on the current crisis in the Middle East – the situation in Gaza is intolerable. Our policy has always been consistently clear: we support a negotiated two state solution as the only way to resolve this conflict once and for all and to allow Israelis and Palestinians to live safely in peace.
I think that suggests an element of pique on the Baroness's part was combined with her principled stand. I would hope that her religion was not a factor in her decision. If so it would be very sad.
Labour concentrate all of their efforts on seats they have a chance of winning. If you live in Tory or Lib Dem area where Labour have no chance, you will have noticed that Labour don't bother. They pick a rubbish candidate and do virtually no campaigning.
The Tories are no longer a UK wide party and mostly represent rural or affluent parts of England. David Cameron and most of his cabinet do not represent most of the country, who therefore see the Tories as out of touch. If the Tories want to win a majority they have to spread their appeal. I think they are interested in doing this and I see Osborne was visiting the north of England this morning talking about the investment that is needed.
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
Labour concentrate all of their efforts on seats they have a chance of winning. If you live in Tory or Lib Dem area where Labour have no chance, you will have noticed that Labour don't bother. They pick a rubbish candidate and do virtually no campaigning.
The Tories are no longer a UK wide party and mostly represent rural or affluent parts of England. David Cameron and most of his cabinet do not represent most of the country, who therefore see the Tories as out of touch. If the Tories want to win a majority they have to spread their appeal. I think they are interested in doing this and I see Osborne was visiting the north of England this morning talking about the investment that is needed.
What an odd post - surely the conservatives are no more or less a UK wide party than Labour as your first paragraph implies though does not actually state. As for the Tories only representing rural and affluent parts of Britain - that is simply not the case.
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Yes: it was. I am not blind about Israel's conduct. Were I an Israeli citizen I would not be voting for Netanhanyu. I have stated on this thread that I do not want the Palestinians obliterated and that it is appalling that some in Israel are saying the things they are about killing every Gazan. That is wrong and I condemn it unreservedly.
I wish only that there was not blindness about what Hamas is (why the ".." around the word terrorist?) and what it is trying to do (as set out in its Charter) and does do to Jews and that those who march for peace were equally quick to condemn those who explicitly praise Hitler for what he did to the Jews.
I hope that is clear enough for you. (BTW I do not accuse you of being an apologist for terrorists or anti-Semites.)
Incidentally, thank you to the poster (whose name I cannot remember) who pointed out the Warsi article on anti-semitism. I was wrong on that point.
Labour concentrate all of their efforts on seats they have a chance of winning. If you live in Tory or Lib Dem area where Labour have no chance, you will have noticed that Labour don't bother. They pick a rubbish candidate and do virtually no campaigning.
The Tories are no longer a UK wide party and mostly represent rural or affluent parts of England. David Cameron and most of his cabinet do not represent most of the country, who therefore see the Tories as out of touch. If the Tories want to win a majority they have to spread their appeal. I think they are interested in doing this and I see Osborne was visiting the north of England this morning talking about the investment that is needed.
What an odd post - surely the conservatives are no more or less a UK wide party than Labour as your first paragraph implies though does not actually state. As for the Tories only representing rural and affluent parts of Britain - that is simply not the case.
If Scotland votes No, the Tories are doomed, DOOMED!
Labour concentrate all of their efforts on seats they have a chance of winning. If you live in Tory or Lib Dem area where Labour have no chance, you will have noticed that Labour don't bother. They pick a rubbish candidate and do virtually no campaigning.
The Tories are no longer a UK wide party and mostly represent rural or affluent parts of England. David Cameron and most of his cabinet do not represent most of the country, who therefore see the Tories as out of touch. If the Tories want to win a majority they have to spread their appeal. I think they are interested in doing this and I see Osborne was visiting the north of England this morning talking about the investment that is needed.
What an odd post - surely the conservatives are no more or less a UK wide party than Labour as your first paragraph implies though does not actually state. As for the Tories only representing rural and affluent parts of Britain - that is simply not the case.
If Scotland votes No, the Tories are doomed, DOOMED!
If Scotland votes YES, Scottish Labour will be hammered by the Nats at GE2015 before ceasing to exist shortly thereafter.
@Pulpstar "Scottish Labour will be hammered by the Nats at GE2015 before ceasing to exist shortly thereafter. " And then shall see the inexorable rise of the Pragmatic Communist Party! (Except at weekends, and when there is a two for one drinks offer in the pub)
Agree with @SayeedaWarsi or not, the zealous delight in her going by some fruitbat bloggers today reads like ugly misogyny #GetAGirlfriend
Like Isabel Hardman?
I'll leave the carry on jokes to the progressives
"‘Sayeeda made clear when she got the job at CLG that she didn’t agree with the Prime Minister and that she simply wasn’t going to do this bit of her job.’ The minister has clashed with the Prime Minister over his efforts to tackle extremism, most notably during the drafting of a report from the Extremism Taskforce, when, as Coffee House has previously reported, the pair had an argument while Warsi was on a plane."
Nope. I can register I guess. I just try to keep junk mail down, and 'ticking the box' doesn't always seem to count for much.
For those with sky boxes but aren't in Scotland, you can watch the debate via this little trick
For those with sky but not living in Scotland, you can add STV to your sky box and watch the debate live
1) Press services on your sky box
2) Scroll down to 'Add channels' (Another menu will appear displaying Frequency, Polarization, Symbol Rate and FEC)
3) Change the frequency to 10906
4) Change the Polarization to "V"
5) Change the Symbol Rate to 22.0
6)Change the FEC number to 5/6
7)Select ''Find channels'' at the bottom of the menu
8)You will now see a list of available channels including STV. Simply highlight STV and press the yellow button. A tick will now appear next to STV. Press "Select" again to store STV.
9)Press "Back Up" several times to come out of all the menus until you get your Sky picture again. ( DON'T PRESS TV)
10)Whenever you wish to watch STV in the future simply press "Services" on your remote control which will bring up the menu. Select "Other Channels" and you will then be able to highlight STV and press "Select" to watch.
Having read the Warsi resignation letter and Milliband's recent comments on Gaza, what are they suggesting the UK actually do? I'd thought following the Syria debate and vote that Milliband was on the side of the UK doing nothing to contain slaughter in the Middle East...
Crikey, Miss! Why would you want to? You are just down the road from me, of neither of us have a vote, for us the debate will change nothing. Why would you want to watch it live? The comments on here will be far more entertaining than anything the participants are likely to say.
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Screaming anti-semitism when the Israelis are criticised is...designed to shutdown the debate.
Screaming anti-semitism when people talk of the "big wallets" controlling the UK/US govts is...designed to highlight anti-semitism.
Again, are you seriously claiming that wealthy Jews in America - especially in the media, Hollywood, defense industries, etc - do NOT use their money and influence to swerve American politics in a manner favourable to Israel?
This concept may be an "anti-Semitic trope" in your deluded mind, but it is also indubitably true. Fat Jewish wallets/rich Jewish Americans - call them what you like - have an impact beyond all proportion to their numbers because they are rich, influential and extremely well organised (and good luck to them, others could learn from their example).
Shouting anti-Semitism to prevent this being mentioned just proves Southam's point. And makes you look like a twit.
Shouting anti-semitism when pointing out one of the oldest anti-semitic tropes, that of the controlling Jewish financier (I daren't google thousands of grotesque examples - but feel free to yourself) is entirely justified.
I mean what else is anti-semitism apart from perpetuating a stereotype of a race/religion (!) in order to create hatred and discrimination against them?
At the risk of Godwinning, but we are in that discussion, it is precisely the charge that A Hitler made against the Jews.
It is the very textbook definition of anti-semitism.
As to your point, with which I agreed previously, that "everyone does it" then I have to ask again, what makes the Jews so successful at it where, for example, the Arabs are not (ok forgetting the non-sympathy for Hamas, etc by most of the Arab world)?
Who has the most money? Samuel Goldwyn or the head of the House of Saud?
It is an anti-semitic trope used widely by anti-semites.
Sean you seem a decent enough bloke, legitimately outraged by the behaviour of Israel and it is literally outrageous behaviour. But you are not able to finesse this one.
Crikey, Miss! Why would you want to? You are just down the road from me, of neither of us have a vote, for us the debate will change nothing. Why would you want to watch it live? The comments on here will be far more entertaining than anything the participants are likely to say.
We're politics geeks. We like debates about politics. This is why we are on pb debating politics.
Some of my favourite times on pbc was watching the early GOP debates during the last set of elections with probably 50% of the only people in the whole of the rest of the UK sad enough to stay up to watch them too.
I'm assuming some people have seen the Ipsos-Mori poll.
Lolz.
I presume this means the price has come in from a higher value, i.e. no is now more likely? This doesn't gel with the 75% of punters on Yes according to Hill.
Crikey, Miss! Why would you want to? You are just down the road from me, of neither of us have a vote, for us the debate will change nothing. Why would you want to watch it live? The comments on here will be far more entertaining than anything the participants are likely to say.
We're politics geeks. We like debates about politics. This is why we are on pb debating politics.
Some of my favourite times on pbc was watching the early GOP debates during the last set of elections with probably 50% of the only people in the whole of the rest of the UK sad enough to stay up to watch them too.
I remember us talking about Rick Santorum's sweaters!
Having read the Warsi resignation letter and Milliband's recent comments on Gaza, what are they suggesting the UK actually do? I'd thought following the Syria debate and vote that Milliband was on the side of the UK doing nothing to contain slaughter in the Middle East...
Do? I don't think Miliband wants the UK to actually do anything. Is he not complaining the Cameron has not said enough? After all Miliband has told us that he is jolly keen on action rather than presentation, so its only natural that he will want Cameron to say more and do bugger all, except perhaps say some more things at the UN.
A cease fire resolution, that would be the thing. Back in the day they used to be terribly popular at the UN. Achieved bugger all but made diplomats and politicians feel important and feel as if they had done something. I remember a cartoon in Punch in the early seventies which showed a giant parrot in a cage shaped like the UN building, repeatedly squawking, "A cease fire resolution has been passed".
I'm assuming some people have seen the Ipsos-Mori poll.
Lolz.
I presume this means the price has come in from a higher value, i.e. no is now more likely? This doesn't gel with the 75% of punters on Yes according to Hill.
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Screaming anti-semitism when the Israelis are criticised is...designed to shutdown the debate.
Screaming anti-semitism when people talk of the "big wallets" controlling the UK/US govts is...designed to highlight anti-semitism.
Again, are you seriously claiming that wealthy Jews in America - especially in the media, Hollywood, defense industries, etc - do NOT use their money and influence to swerve American politics in a manner favourable to Israel?
This concept may be an "anti-Semitic trope" in your deluded mind, but it is also indubitably true. Fat Jewish wallets/rich Jewish Americans - call them what you like - have an impact beyond all proportion to their numbers because they are rich, influential and extremely well organised (and good luck to them, others could learn from their example).
Shouting anti-Semitism to prevent this being mentioned just proves Southam's point. And makes you look like a twit.
I'm trying to think of a polite word to describe someone who mentions the racial profile of 2 people within the US government at the time of the 2003 Iraq war and seeks to make a point from it.
Deluded will do. Just as those who seek to make an equally stupid point out of the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein.
There are plenty of groups in the US who are rich, influential and extremely well organised. See for instance the Saudis and their connections with the highest reaches of the US government and both President Bush's. The Saudis are so effective that they even managed to get Blair to stop the SFO's inquiry into corrupt payments by BaE to Saudi officials. Or, indeed, the Irish lobby which was very effective in frustrating the British government's efforts against Republic terrorism and its support in the US during the Troubles.
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Screaming anti-semitism when the Israelis are criticised is...designed to shutdown the debate.
Screaming anti-semitism when people talk of the "big wallets" controlling the UK/US govts is...designed to highlight anti-semitism.
Again, are you seriously claiming that wealthy Jews in America - especially in the media, Hollywood, defense industries, etc - do NOT use their money and influence to swerve American politics in a manner favourable to Israel?
This concept may be an "anti-Semitic trope" in your deluded mind, but it is also indubitably true. Fat Jewish wallets/rich Jewish Americans - call them what you like - have an impact beyond all proportion to their numbers because they are rich, influential and extremely well organised (and good luck to them, others could learn from their example).
Shouting anti-Semitism to prevent this being mentioned just proves Southam's point. And makes you look like a twit.
It is an anti-semitic trope used widely by anti-semites.
Sean you seem a decent enough bloke, legitimately outraged by the behaviour of Israel and it is literally outrageous behaviour. But you are not able to finesse this one.
I don't have to finesse anything, you pencil-head. The Jewish lobby in America is rich, brilliant, and hugely successful in influencing American politics to the benefit of Israel. No one with a brain denies this, and you can scream Goebbels as much as you like, like some demented West Bank Settler with Tourette's - it won't change this basic fact, or stop people like me pointing it out.
Edit: deleted my comment which was too crass for me and that's saying something.
Crikey, Miss! Why would you want to? You are just down the road from me, of neither of us have a vote, for us the debate will change nothing. Why would you want to watch it live? The comments on here will be far more entertaining than anything the participants are likely to say.
We're politics geeks. We like debates about politics. This is why we are on pb debating politics.
Some of my favourite times on pbc was watching the early GOP debates during the last set of elections with probably 50% of the only people in the whole of the rest of the UK sad enough to stay up to watch them too.
I remember us talking about Rick Santorum's sweaters!
Remember the night Rick got Santorum on his sweater?
Just received the competing material from HMG and The Scottish Government. HMG one is amateurish and very poor. Keep the pound , lower bills , more public services and so just more lies and dire presentation. Contrast with a professional one from Scottish Government that is positive , gives options and promotes Scotland and the people, it is no contest.
There is a difference between an 'open-minded' and 'empty head'.......Did the Scottish Govt one tell you what your currency would be (since the other one told you it wouldn't be the £?)
Even fools know that one , HMG lying does not hide the reality
PS : just for you , it clearly states the published policy which is "We'll keep the pound"
T There you have it. Lawyers for Yes admitting that what the UK Government have said is correct and that what the Scottish Government continue to say is wrong in law. In the law we have a word for what the SNP are doing. That word is misrepresentation.
If that is correct then of course we also leave the debt as it is the UK's debt and as you say we have left the UK. I doubt the rUK will want that outcome. You cannot have your cake and eat it. We can still use the pound as our currency though.
No, the debt is subject to negotiation - try getting into the EU or NATO if you are seen to renege on your debt. All that would happen is that your biggest (by orders of magnitude) trading partner would erect tariffs on Scottish imports until the debt had been paid off. Almost certainly with border controls. Whether Scotland would have been able to impose capital controls (remember the days of £50 to go abroad?) before capital flight happened should be giving you sleepless nights.....
So everything apart from the debt is the rump UK's but magically only the debt belongs to Scotland. What lawyer told you that one. Do you think we button up the back , do you actually think that other nations will look and say , oh England robbed Scotland of everything they were due but we hold Scotland responsible entirely for England's debts and so we will punish them. Get real, do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
Shhh, everyone. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THE VAGUE POSSIBILITY THAT JEWS IN AMERICA USE THEIR MONEY TO LOBBY WASHINGTON, VERY EFFECTIVELY.
No one can ever mention this. EVER. It cannot be discussed, or even alluded to, in fact you cannot even think it privately in your own home, as if you do YOU ARE IN FAVOUR OF GASSING THE JEWS, ALL OVER AGAIN, AND YOU GET A HARD ON WATCHING TRIUMPH OF THE WILL.
This comment will self destruct in five seconds.
Thank you for your apology Sean, it is much appreciated.
(I know, it is a Sean-type reverse-womble apology, but it is an apology).
Crikey, Miss! Why would you want to? You are just down the road from me, of neither of us have a vote, for us the debate will change nothing. Why would you want to watch it live? The comments on here will be far more entertaining than anything the participants are likely to say.
We're politics geeks. We like debates about politics. This is why we are on pb debating politics.
Some of my favourite times on pbc was watching the early GOP debates during the last set of elections with probably 50% of the only people in the whole of the rest of the UK sad enough to stay up to watch them too.
I remember us talking about Rick Santorum's sweaters!
Remember the night Rick got Santorum on his sweater?
Tiny little bit of sick just popped into my mouth.
Shhh, everyone. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THE VAGUE POSSIBILITY THAT JEWS IN AMERICA USE THEIR MONEY TO LOBBY WASHINGTON, VERY EFFECTIVELY.
No one can ever mention this. EVER. It cannot be discussed, or even alluded to, in fact you cannot even think it privately in your own home, as if you do YOU ARE IN FAVOUR OF GASSING THE JEWS, ALL OVER AGAIN, AND YOU GET A HARD ON WATCHING TRIUMPH OF THE WILL.
This comment will self destruct in five seconds.
Thank you for your apology Sean, it is much appreciated.
(I know, it is a Sean-type reverse-womble apology, but it is an apology).
Nope, that ain't an apology of any kind.
You are a blinkered, flailing moron, and I suspect you get sexually aroused by the idea of bombing Gaza.
Shhh, everyone. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THE VAGUE POSSIBILITY THAT JEWS IN AMERICA USE THEIR MONEY TO LOBBY WASHINGTON, VERY EFFECTIVELY.
No one can ever mention this. EVER. It cannot be discussed, or even alluded to, in fact you cannot even think it privately in your own home, as if you do YOU ARE IN FAVOUR OF GASSING THE JEWS, ALL OVER AGAIN, AND YOU GET A HARD ON WATCHING TRIUMPH OF THE WILL.
This comment will self destruct in five seconds.
The pro-Israeli lobby in America who are, presumably, mostly Jewish, DO USE THEIR MONEY TO LOBBY WASHINGTON, VERY EFFECTIVELY.
There. I said it.
I have always been puzzled why the politicos are so scared of them. After all, apart from Florida [ a crucial state admittedly ] their influence means not much. Would the Democrats not win NY and NJ without the pro-Israeli vote. There is a large professional Muslim vote in the US now but they are not so orgainsed, I think.
There is an Arab Americam organisation. The pollster Zogby being one of them. Whether they lobby Washington or not I don't know. More importantly, does anyone in Washington listen to them ?
But many Jews in the USAshould also be appalled by the scorched earth policies of this terrorist Netanyahu. I wonder where they sit on this ? What is the Israeli Labour Party's position on this ?
Crikey, Miss! Why would you want to? You are just down the road from me, of neither of us have a vote, for us the debate will change nothing. Why would you want to watch it live? The comments on here will be far more entertaining than anything the participants are likely to say.
We're politics geeks. We like debates about politics. This is why we are on pb debating politics.
Some of my favourite times on pbc was watching the early GOP debates during the last set of elections with probably 50% of the only people in the whole of the rest of the UK sad enough to stay up to watch them too.
I remember us talking about Rick Santorum's sweaters!
Remember the night Rick got Santorum on his sweater?
Does anyone else agree that Philip Hammond seems to be a natural as Foreign Secretary?
He gave an excellent interview about Baroness Warsi's resignation. Very diplomatic but at the same time firm about his own and the government's position.
He has been similarly good at Defence. His only fault has been at Transport where he kicked off £50bn of HS2 spending when "There is no money left".
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
@Sunil_Prasannan The genetic difference between Palistinians and middle east Jews is negligible according to one report. Which the publisher asked the readers of the magazine to rip out and throw away, after having been inundated with complaints from the "chosen people".
Is that the article which referred to Gaza as a "concentration camp"?
As someone who regularly reads scientific papers, I prefer less emotive/political terms to be used in what should be a sober discussion. (The actual results of the study were interesting, and it was a shame the author had to be silly about how he presented it)
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
@malcolmg - some homework before Project Fib at 8pm:
..... institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in the referendum........
You vote to leave the UK and its institutions - but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your share of its assets & liabilities. Salmond's (allegedly) an economist and must know this - but all he's worried about is carrying Project Fib to the finish line.
For the reasons I have set out on here on several occasions I do not agree that there will be a discrepancy on the scale we saw in 2010, let alone 2005 in 2015. That does not mean, of course, that this will not be a very considerable advantage to Labour. Clearly it will.
My optimism that the result may bear a better relationship with the votes cast is increased, somewhat ironically, by the relative continuing strength of UKIP. I think that 36% will be worth considerably more to the tories where it matters than it did in 2010 as a result.
My expectation is also that many of the red liberal votes that we talk about so endlessly will be wasted votes, increasing the Labour share but, if anything, increasing the tory seats. This will particularly be the case in the south west.
How much of a lead will the tories need to be the largest party? I am not sure but my guess is about 4%. 36:32 will probably just give the tories the edge. At the moment that is looking like a difficult but not impossible ask. If Labour stays up in the mid 30s they will be the largest party and probably have a majority.
That seems far too pessimistic for Con.
Con will be largest party under UNS with 36:32 - 36/32/15 gives C 299, L 288.
Kellner is expecting Lab to get 25 seats less than it would under UNS. If say 10 of those go to Con then 36/32/15 per Kellner will give a result of C 309, L 263 - a 46 seat lead for Con.
Now Kellner may be wrong, we'll have to wait and see. But he's one of the most knowledgeable political pundits and remember he is a Lab supporter - ie he's not doing what 99% of pundits and people on here do which is to convince themselves that the Party they personally support will win / do better than expected.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
Does anyone else agree that Philip Hammond seems to be a natural as Foreign Secretary?
He gave an excellent interview about Baroness Warsi's resignation. Very diplomatic but at the same time firm about his own and the government's position.
He has been similarly good at Defence. His only fault has been at Transport where he kicked off £50bn of HS2 spending when "There is no money left".
Must have rubbed her nose in it given he has the job she wanted
For the reasons I have set out on here on several occasions I do not agree that there will be a discrepancy on the scale we saw in 2010, let alone 2005 in 2015. That does not mean, of course, that this will not be a very considerable advantage to Labour. Clearly it will.
My optimism that the result may bear a better relationship with the votes cast is increased, somewhat ironically, by the relative continuing strength of UKIP. I think that 36% will be worth considerably more to the tories where it matters than it did in 2010 as a result.
My expectation is also that many of the red liberal votes that we talk about so endlessly will be wasted votes, increasing the Labour share but, if anything, increasing the tory seats. This will particularly be the case in the south west.
How much of a lead will the tories need to be the largest party? I am not sure but my guess is about 4%. 36:32 will probably just give the tories the edge. At the moment that is looking like a difficult but not impossible ask. If Labour stays up in the mid 30s they will be the largest party and probably have a majority.
That seems far too pessimistic for Con.
Con will be largest party under UNS with 36:32 - 36/32/15 gives C 299, L 288.
Kellner is expecting Lab to get 25 seats less than it would under UNS. If say 10 of those go to Con then 36/32/15 per Kellner will give a result of C 309, L 263 - a 46 seat lead for Con.
Now Kellner may be wrong, we'll have to wait and see. But he's one of the most knowledgeable political pundits and remember he is a Lab supporter - ie he's not doing what 99% of pundits and people on here do which is to convince themselves that the Party they personally support will win / do better than expected.
Shhh, everyone. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THE VAGUE POSSIBILITY THAT JEWS IN AMERICA USE THEIR MONEY TO LOBBY WASHINGTON, VERY EFFECTIVELY.
No one can ever mention this. EVER. It cannot be discussed, or even alluded to, in fact you cannot even think it privately in your own home, as if you do YOU ARE IN FAVOUR OF GASSING THE JEWS, ALL OVER AGAIN, AND YOU GET A HARD ON WATCHING TRIUMPH OF THE WILL.
This comment will self destruct in five seconds.
Thank you for your apology Sean, it is much appreciated.
(I know, it is a Sean-type reverse-womble apology, but it is an apology).
Nope, that ain't an apology of any kind.
You are a blinkered, flailing moron, and I suspect you get sexually aroused by the idea of bombing Gaza.
That's my boy.
I'm off now to do some work, in the interim perhaps you could give us a "politically correct" verbal formulation for describing the unusually effective lobbing by wealthy American Jews in Washington.
Or is it simply unacceptable even to allude to this fact, in any way whatsover?
Shalom and Salaam.
Amazingly, I must also go out. I am super-definitely not not going to answer this so I will have it for you either tomorrow first thing or when you come on tomorrow.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats. I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
For the reasons I have set out on here on several occasions I do not agree that there will be a discrepancy on the scale we saw in 2010, let alone 2005 in 2015. That does not mean, of course, that this will not be a very considerable advantage to Labour. Clearly it will.
My optimism that the result may bear a better relationship with the votes cast is increased, somewhat ironically, by the relative continuing strength of UKIP. I think that 36% will be worth considerably more to the tories where it matters than it did in 2010 as a result.
My expectation is also that many of the red liberal votes that we talk about so endlessly will be wasted votes, increasing the Labour share but, if anything, increasing the tory seats. This will particularly be the case in the south west.
How much of a lead will the tories need to be the largest party? I am not sure but my guess is about 4%. 36:32 will probably just give the tories the edge. At the moment that is looking like a difficult but not impossible ask. If Labour stays up in the mid 30s they will be the largest party and probably have a majority.
That seems far too pessimistic for Con.
Con will be largest party under UNS with 36:32 - 36/32/15 gives C 299, L 288.
Kellner is expecting Lab to get 25 seats less than it would under UNS. If say 10 of those go to Con then 36/32/15 per Kellner will give a result of C 309, L 263 - a 46 seat lead for Con.
Now Kellner may be wrong, we'll have to wait and see. But he's one of the most knowledgeable political pundits and remember he is a Lab supporter - ie he's not doing what 99% of pundits and people on here do which is to convince themselves that the Party they personally support will win / do better than expected.
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats. I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats
No - we're Unionists - you're a separatist......and I note you don't challenge his assessment of veracity, or lack of it, of the UK and Scottish government's statements on the currency............
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
It does.
But it post-dates Queen Elizabeth I (of England). Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland at the time (don't think there was a King?). She was succeeded by her son, James VI of Scotland, who subsequently became James I of England. At this point there was a personal union of Crowns, but I don't think it was a legal Union of Crowns until later.
If you keep this up, I shall have to reassess your reliability on all matters to do with Hannibal.
@malcolmg - some homework before Project Fib at 8pm:
..... institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in the referendum........
You vote to leave the UK and its institutions - but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your share of its assets & liabilities. Salmond's (allegedly) an economist and must know this - but all he's worried about is carrying Project Fib to the finish line.
Doh , so now the pound is an institution. So how can we not get institutions but be an institution in debt. You get barmier as the day goes on.
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
"Begin claimed in his memoirs that the British had deliberately not evacuated so that they could vilify the Jewish militant groups."
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats. I see also he used the usual unionist way of lying by omitting most of what was printed and using selective phrase to make it look his way. Typical of what you would expect from a liar.
But I read it in a blog - it MUST be true!!!!
It was written in Glasgow - not Bath - hence Malcolm's lack of faith.......
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Cyclefree writes good stuff here in PB. Except those with a soecial interest in Israel are totally blind about Israel's conduct. Israel can bomb Gaza until every human is dead and yet they will find some excuse to justify it.
I hear ad nauseum about Hamas' "terrorist" link. I have only one question.
When Menachem Begin and the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed 108 British soldiers. Was that an act of terrorism ?
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers. Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course. The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942. Irgun 'declared war' in 1946. So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight. The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council. The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
One of those in the act became an Israeli Prime Minister.
"Begin claimed in his memoirs that the British had deliberately not evacuated so that they could vilify the Jewish militant groups."
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
Single State ? The word you are looking for is Annexation.
do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
I'm not the one being taken for a fool:
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
LOL, Tomkins, your new obsession. You are both extreme Britnats
No - we're Unionists - you're a separatist......and I note you don't challenge his assessment of veracity, or lack of it, of the UK and Scottish government's statements on the currency............
How pathetic can you get, you need to brush up on your English. Separatist is not a word that can be used in this context , unless you are a dumpling and wish to be nasty and objectional. Stick to being A British Nationalist.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK, could they justly reclaim the ‘Stewart Sapphire’ presently set in the Imperial State Crown?
One would imagine not as it is part of the regalia of QE2 who will still be Queen of Scotland. Unless they decide to become a republic at some stage.....
She will be Elizabeth I in Scotland
Don't embarrass yourself Malcolm.
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
It does.
But it post-dates Queen Elizabeth I (of England). Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland at the time (don't think there was a King?). She was succeeded by her son, James VI of Scotland, who subsequently became James I of England. At this point there was a personal union of Crowns, but I don't think it was a legal Union of Crowns until later.
If you keep this up, I shall have to reassess your reliability on all matters to do with Hannibal.
The SNP have confirmed she will remain Queen Liz II.
What we need is Jacobite judgement on this.
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Will I say Alex Salmond is like Scipio Africanus, and Darling is like Hannibal?
The whole "anti-semitism" thing strikes me as an example of curious ideological cross-dressing. It gives some on the left the opportunity to denounce, albeit indirectly, a religious and racial minority, yet mitigate the charge of racism with the cover that the minority concerned - Jews - is associated with wealth, power and "oppression". Those on the right who are apologists for Israel have at the same time the rare opportunity to denounce the former group for their "anti-semitism" and "racism". Thus the consciences of both are salved.
Screaming anti-Semitism when the Israelis are criticised is the same as screaming racism when immigration is criticised.
Both are devices designed to shutdown debate.
Agreed - but unfortunately I believe it is the stated aim of Hamas to destroy Israel and this is no better a good starting point that the refusal by Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements. With better leadership on both sides a 2 state solution would be possible.
I'm not sure that a 2 state solution will create viable entities (unless Gaza/WB is reunited with Jordan, which the Hashemites would hate).
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
I'd also favour a single-state (gasps at agreement with Charles????).
Single State ? The word you are looking for is Annexation.
So you believe that the Palestinians currently living in Jordan-based refugee camps shouldn't be able to return to their ancestral homes?
@malcolmg - some homework before Project Fib at 8pm:
..... institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in the referendum........
You vote to leave the UK and its institutions - but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your share of its assets & liabilities. Salmond's (allegedly) an economist and must know this - but all he's worried about is carrying Project Fib to the finish line.
Doh , so now the pound is an institution. So how can we not get institutions but be an institution in debt. You get barmier as the day goes on.
No, the pound is a monetary instrument issued on behalf of the UK Government by a UK institution the Bank of England
What possible consequences might you foresee from voting to leave the UK, and hence, its institutions....?
Comments
The Tories are no longer a UK wide party and mostly represent rural or affluent parts of England. David Cameron and most of his cabinet do not represent most of the country, who therefore see the Tories as out of touch. If the Tories want to win a majority they have to spread their appeal. I think they are interested in doing this and I see Osborne was visiting the north of England this morning talking about the investment that is needed.
I do hope not.
@SouthamObserver
Agree.
Screaming anti-semitism when the Israelis are criticised is...designed to shutdown the debate.
Screaming anti-semitism when people talk of the "big wallets" controlling the UK/US govts is...designed to highlight anti-semitism.
Of the dead (91) in the King David hotel, many were arabs and jews. 28 were British, 13 of them soldiers.
Many British troops were killed in other attacks of course.
The Stern Gang were terrorists and various members were hanged, Stern himself was shot by the British in1942.
Irgun 'declared war' in 1946.
So yes they were terrorists and at one time the British swept 20,000 troops through Tel Aviv with orders to shoot curfew breakers on sight.
The terrorists were condemned in the USA and both British and US Jewish authorities condemned the terrorism, as did the UN security council.
The soviets were helping the Jewish terrorists at this time.
I was taught 2 wrongs do not make a right.
I wish only that there was not blindness about what Hamas is (why the ".." around the word terrorist?) and what it is trying to do (as set out in its Charter) and does do to Jews and that those who march for peace were equally quick to condemn those who explicitly praise Hitler for what he did to the Jews.
I hope that is clear enough for you. (BTW I do not accuse you of being an apologist for terrorists or anti-Semites.)
Incidentally, thank you to the poster (whose name I cannot remember) who pointed out the Warsi article on anti-semitism. I was wrong on that point.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/284650-how-to-watch-stvs-alex-salmond-vs-alistair-darling-referendum-debate/
http://descrier.co.uk/politics/scottish-independence-watch-stv-indyref-debate/
Agree with @SayeedaWarsi or not, the zealous delight in her going by some fruitbat bloggers today reads like ugly misogyny #GetAGirlfriend
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/05/Baroness-Token-resigns-Never-buy-the-first-pony-you-see
"Scottish Labour will be hammered by the Nats at GE2015 before ceasing to exist shortly thereafter. "
And then shall see the inexorable rise of the Pragmatic Communist Party!
(Except at weekends, and when there is a two for one drinks offer in the pub)
I'll leave the carry on jokes to the progressives
"‘Sayeeda made clear when she got the job at CLG that she didn’t agree with the Prime Minister and that she simply wasn’t going to do this bit of her job.’ The minister has clashed with the Prime Minister over his efforts to tackle extremism, most notably during the drafting of a report from the Extremism Taskforce, when, as Coffee House has previously reported, the pair had an argument while Warsi was on a plane."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/exclusive-hopeless-warsi-resists-david-camerons-fight-against-extremism/
Sindy No down to 1.21 on betfair.
For those with sky but not living in Scotland, you can add STV to your sky box and watch the debate live
1) Press services on your sky box
2) Scroll down to 'Add channels' (Another menu will appear displaying Frequency, Polarization, Symbol Rate and FEC)
3) Change the frequency to 10906
4) Change the Polarization to "V"
5) Change the Symbol Rate to 22.0
6)Change the FEC number to 5/6
7)Select ''Find channels'' at the bottom of the menu
8)You will now see a list of available channels including STV. Simply highlight STV and press the yellow button. A tick will now appear next to STV. Press "Select" again to store STV.
9)Press "Back Up" several times to come out of all the menus until you get your Sky picture again. ( DON'T PRESS TV)
10)Whenever you wish to watch STV in the future simply press "Services" on your remote control which will bring up the menu. Select "Other Channels" and you will then be able to highlight STV and press "Select" to watch.
I mean what else is anti-semitism apart from perpetuating a stereotype of a race/religion (!) in order to create hatred and discrimination against them?
At the risk of Godwinning, but we are in that discussion, it is precisely the charge that A Hitler made against the Jews.
It is the very textbook definition of anti-semitism.
As to your point, with which I agreed previously, that "everyone does it" then I have to ask again, what makes the Jews so successful at it where, for example, the Arabs are not (ok forgetting the non-sympathy for Hamas, etc by most of the Arab world)?
Who has the most money? Samuel Goldwyn or the head of the House of Saud?
It is an anti-semitic trope used widely by anti-semites.
Sean you seem a decent enough bloke, legitimately outraged by the behaviour of Israel and it is literally outrageous behaviour. But you are not able to finesse this one.
I thought this was the random abuse forum?
Is it next door?
William Hill say that 75% of #indyref bets placed today have been for YES.
Only kidding.
Although I will have no access to the debate, I can confidently predict that malcolmg will call it an overwhelming victory for Yes.
A cease fire resolution, that would be the thing. Back in the day they used to be terribly popular at the UN. Achieved bugger all but made diplomats and politicians feel important and feel as if they had done something. I remember a cartoon in Punch in the early seventies which showed a giant parrot in a cage shaped like the UN building, repeatedly squawking, "A cease fire resolution has been passed".
Deluded will do. Just as those who seek to make an equally stupid point out of the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein.
There are plenty of groups in the US who are rich, influential and extremely well organised. See for instance the Saudis and their connections with the highest reaches of the US government and both President Bush's. The Saudis are so effective that they even managed to get Blair to stop the SFO's inquiry into corrupt payments by BaE to Saudi officials. Or, indeed, the Irish lobby which was very effective in frustrating the British government's efforts against Republic terrorism and its support in the US during the Troubles.
EDIT: may only be UK on re-reading site.
Get real, do you think other people are as gullible as you seem to be.
(I know, it is a Sean-type reverse-womble apology, but it is an apology).
Tsk ....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/05/union-law-review-barrister-bruce-carr-minister
Edit .... Missed.
There. I said it.
I have always been puzzled why the politicos are so scared of them. After all, apart from Florida [ a crucial state admittedly ] their influence means not much. Would the Democrats not win NY and NJ without the pro-Israeli vote. There is a large professional Muslim vote in the US now but they are not so orgainsed, I think.
There is an Arab Americam organisation. The pollster Zogby being one of them. Whether they lobby Washington or not I don't know. More importantly, does anyone in Washington listen to them ?
But many Jews in the USAshould also be appalled by the scorched earth policies of this terrorist Netanyahu. I wonder where they sit on this ? What is the Israeli Labour Party's position on this ?
Just thought I would see what's up wine offer-wise at Tescos and realised that the target demographic has changed somewhat since last I looked.
Talk about repositioning...
tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245+4294967142
He gave an excellent interview about Baroness Warsi's resignation. Very diplomatic but at the same time firm about his own and the government's position.
He has been similarly good at Defence. His only fault has been at Transport where he kicked off £50bn of HS2 spending when "There is no money left".
When I got home yesterday evening two door-drops greeted me, one from the UK Government (Five Ways we Benefit by Staying in the United Kingdom) and one from the Scottish Government (Scotland’s Future: What Independence Means for You).
The former states as follows:
The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and risky.
Three claims. Each of them true. None of them overstated. None of them exaggerations. None of them scaremongering. No threat to “take away the pound”. No nonsense about an indy Scotland “not being able to use” the pound. Just three accurate, carefully worded, true statements.
By contrast, the latter states as follows:
We’ll keep the pound. An independent Scotland will keep the pound. After all, it’s as much Scotland’s currency as it is the rest of the UK’s.
Three claims. Two of them deliberately misleading; one of them demonstrably false
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/
As someone who regularly reads scientific papers, I prefer less emotive/political terms to be used in what should be a sober discussion. (The actual results of the study were interesting, and it was a shame the author had to be silly about how he presented it)
I think the author agreed that the choice of words was wrong, and posted the same.
I'd plump for a single state, but with consocialisation embedded into the political system with appropriate constitutional protection.
Can we have a discussions about consocialisation, please? Pretty please? It's even better than AV when you combine it with d'Hondt.
..... institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.
The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in the referendum........
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-hidden-costs-of-independence/
Got that?
You vote to leave the UK and its institutions - but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your share of its assets & liabilities. Salmond's (allegedly) an economist and must know this - but all he's worried about is carrying Project Fib to the finish line.
Con will be largest party under UNS with 36:32 - 36/32/15 gives C 299, L 288.
Kellner is expecting Lab to get 25 seats less than it would under UNS. If say 10 of those go to Con then 36/32/15 per Kellner will give a result of C 309, L 263 - a 46 seat lead for Con.
Now Kellner may be wrong, we'll have to wait and see. But he's one of the most knowledgeable political pundits and remember he is a Lab supporter - ie he's not doing what 99% of pundits and people on here do which is to convince themselves that the Party they personally support will win / do better than expected.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/baroness-warsi-wanted-to-be-foreign-secretary/
It will be the very next thing I post on PB.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/
Honestly, even the SNP say she will still be Queen Liz II.
The Union of the Crowns pre-dates the Act of Union.
So why try to make a point about the article being deleted from the journal?
(Admittedly the "please rip it out" approach was a little silly)
£4,800.00 per case
Equivalent to £800.00 per bottle
But it post-dates Queen Elizabeth I (of England). Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland at the time (don't think there was a King?). She was succeeded by her son, James VI of Scotland, who subsequently became James I of England. At this point there was a personal union of Crowns, but I don't think it was a legal Union of Crowns until later.
If you keep this up, I shall have to reassess your reliability on all matters to do with Hannibal.
What a bastard !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
Posh people go to Tesco as well...
What we need is Jacobite judgement on this.
Plus: I'm doing the debate/Ipsos-Mori thread this evening.
Will I say Alex Salmond is like Scipio Africanus, and Darling is like Hannibal?
What possible consequences might you foresee from voting to leave the UK, and hence, its institutions....?
Its not that difficult, surely?