politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two weeks to go in Scotland and NO edges up on the exchange

Pulpstar said:

So the EU has given us Energy and Climate change. Juncker must have chortled into his brandy when that one was announced.

Pulpstar said:

So the EU has given us Energy and Climate change. Juncker must have chortled into his brandy when that one was announced.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

dyedwoolie said:

state_go_away said:

dyedwoolie said:

state_go_away said:

dyedwoolie said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.

But maybe that's just me

BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.

I understand the reasons and need for things to be said, but it's like anything else in life, we've all just got yo get on with it after Sept 19 regardless. I'd have liked to have heard more positive encouragement to stay alongside the uncomfortable facts. That's what has been missing for me.

Its not up to the rest of the UK to provide the positive encouragement beyond a polite 'we don't want you to leave' . Its up to the people of Scotland who want to stay to do it. If ,in a marriage , one partner starts to make noises about leaving do you have to shower them with praise and beg for them to stay? -No. You may point out the consequences and say you do not wish a divorce but the bad feeling to be honest comes when one party says it may want to split (not when the other does not shower praises on the partner that is deciding whether to go or not)

But it's not a marriage, it's a constitutional settlement.
Anyway, this argument is circular. What's done is done.

Woolie , they are just too thick. Liek broken records.

That can spell?

NURTIP!

TheWatcher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

<

Not water soldiers.

I have a weakness for having a massive Airborne/Air Assault Division(s)

Edit: Then again The Paras went 50 years without making combat jump

Have the Paras actually made a combat jump since Suez (my late father in law jumped in that and he was a Royal Marine). Small units have, for sure, but not what you would call a proper combat jump. What is more we don't have the capability to drop more than a company sized formation and I read a year or so back that many so-called Paras are no longer even qualified to jump. Not that many years ago one battalion of the three in the Parachute battalion was always in what they called Penguin mode, that is they had to spend a tour operating as ordinary infantry. Now we still have three battalions (though one is for special forces support) and of the other two only one company(ish) is jump capable, at any time. I suggest that the Parachute Regiment was called into being because of a particular set of circumstances, just like the Glider Pilot Regiment. Unlike the Glider Pilot Regiment, the Parachute Regiment has lived on beyond the period for which it was needed.

The Parachute Regiment is an example of the army's problem. Our defence needs have changed and they pretend to offer something that they can't deliver and which we don't need or which could be provided more effectively under a unified command structure elsewhere.

P.S. Don't get me started on Crab Air.

They did in Afghanistan Dec 2010, The 1st Battalion, as part of a wider Airborne/Air Assault Campaign.

http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/281210-paras-jump-into-action.php

Special Forces Support Group jumped; is that not a 'small unit'?

hamiltonace said:

Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected.
This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheWatcher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

<

Not water soldiers.

I have a weakness for having a massive Airborne/Air Assault Division(s)

Edit: Then again The Paras went 50 years without making combat jump

Have the Paras actually made a combat jump since Suez (my late father in law jumped in that and he was a Royal Marine). Small units have, for sure, but not what you would call a proper combat jump. What is more we don't have the capability to drop more than a company sized formation and I read a year or so back that many so-called Paras are no longer even qualified to jump. Not that many years ago one battalion of the three in the Parachute battalion was always in what they called Penguin mode, that is they had to spend a tour operating as ordinary infantry. Now we still have three battalions (though one is for special forces support) and of the other two only one company(ish) is jump capable, at any time. I suggest that the Parachute Regiment was called into being because of a particular set of circumstances, just like the Glider Pilot Regiment. Unlike the Glider Pilot Regiment, the Parachute Regiment has lived on beyond the period for which it was needed.

The Parachute Regiment is an example of the army's problem. Our defence needs have changed and they pretend to offer something that they can't deliver and which we don't need or which could be provided more effectively under a unified command structure elsewhere.

P.S. Don't get me started on Crab Air.

They did in Afghanistan Dec 2010, The 1st Battalion, as part of a wider Airborne/Air Assault Campaign.

http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/281210-paras-jump-into-action.php

Special Forces Support Group jumped; is that not a 'small unit'?

I read it as Battalion sized contribution, if I recall, a Battalion has around 600-1,000 soldiers.

Happy to be corrected.

TheWatcher said:

hamiltonace said:

and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.

That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.

The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.

David_Evershed said:

Slackbladder said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

@AlanRoden: Some #indyref figures from campaign sources: Yes claim they can get 55%. Better Together claim postal vote canvasses are currently 67% No.

LOL, great source there turnip head

To be fair postal voters are likely to be older and therefore swing more to no.

Given the education system I suppose only the older voters are able to read and write. The younger ones will just make their X mark on the day.

TheWatcher said:

HurstLlama said:

hamiltonace said:

Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected.
This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.

What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it.

"Ooh, we've changed our minds, can we stay after all?"

I can imagine the response.

Blofelds_Cat said:

malcolmg said:

Blofelds_Cat said:

malcolmg said:

Gadfly said:

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

malcolmg said:

The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture
twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1

The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!

But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.

I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.

But I cannot recall applauding any caricatures!

My mental image of yourself is a cartoon though:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundskeeper_Willie

Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.

Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)

You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.

If you don't support Alex Salmond, do you support the reasons he's giving for a YES vote?
If not, then he is indeed the leader of the Big Fib.

Edit: (I'll take the thick turnip bit as read, thanks)

No need as an intelligent post. I do support the reason why we should have independence. Decisions on Scotland should be taken in Scotland by Scottish citizens not by people in London.
There will be lots of negotiations and other things that need sorted out etc but does not change the basic premise of self determination.

Malcolm - but I'm a dyed in the wool, lifelong, Tory Unionist with 25% Scots' genes. I may not be a thick turnip but can I at least have the honour of being a stupid, misguided cretin?

TheWatcher said:

OblitusSumMe said:

TheWatcher said:

hamiltonace said:

and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.

That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.

The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.

Some people are terribly badly informed. The reality is that:

"Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe"

England's electricity is much more likely to rise in price than Scotland's, following independence. It's not like Scotland won't have any cards to play in the Independence negotiations.

Net exporters, yes, but how does the unit cost compare to that of power generated in England.

TGOHF said:

TheWatcher said:

hamiltonace said:

and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.

That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.

The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.

Would the Scottish SAS be going in to rescue this hostage chap ? After the Scottish Mi6 and military intelligence had found his location via their listening post at Scottish GCHQ ?

Charles said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.

That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.

But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.

The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.

Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.

Firman, is the term you want maybe?

That the one - I looked it up afterwards, but couldn't be bothered to post.

Having read the firman though (or at least the English translation of the Italian translation that is all that exists) most of it is about access to the site and the drawing of the marbles, with the throw away line about "no one will get in their way if they decide to remove any stones from the site"

It looks like Elgin aggressively interpreted his mandate!

Socrates said:

Juncker confirming what his office said a couple months back. He "owes nothing" to the UK:

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/juncker-owes-cameron-nothing-over-top-jobs-303542

If the EU owes nothing to us, isn't it about time we stopped subsidising them? I don't really feel happy paying the salary for a French competition commissioner to further protect the French farmers we subsidise from competition...

hamiltonace said:

malcolmg said:

hamiltonace said:

Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected.
This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.

Ha Ha Ha , what a turnip, obviously some thick Labour dumpling you were talking to , two losers swapping fairy tales.

Well Malcolm. I would suggest you are the loser as all you have in your life is posting on this website. You think you are a true Scot but in the end you are a pawn in a game who is only a legend in his own lunchtime. Unlike you I have my own clan of loyal Scots who over the last 15 years have built up their own wee bit of glen to make something they can be proud of. As all true Scots our clan is way more important than our sense of being Scots or British.

Patrick said:

If you want to put a company of infantry on an enemy held bit of land (but over which you have air supremacy) the options these days are:
1. Fly two big slow Hercules transports over and drop in the Paras by parachute.
2. Fly in three slow but potentially very low flying Chinooks and drop who you like.
In each case 'prep' the DZ and support with close air support aircraft (Apache).
In the Chinook case you can also extract troops / casualties.

There just aren't missions any more that a paratroop drop can accomplish that can't be done better with helicopters. The invention of the helicopter kind of blew away the whole point of paratroops. 'Airborne' means 'Heliborne' these days.