The Russian proposals – at least something is on the table – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Scots didn't let themselves be independent when they voted 55% to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 vote.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
On the latest poll 51% still oppose independence
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1500397101615833090?s=20&t=EvpJST2MSYk9UllbHMof1A1 -
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.0 -
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.OldKingCole said:
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.tlg86 said:
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.OldKingCole said:Good morning everyone.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence.
That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.1 -
Who would have thought a Franco supporter would have had that bent opinion.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.0 -
Global Britain...
1 -
Dr. Foxy, you may be aware that the 11th century was rather different to our own...
Incidentally, that Ukrainian/Channel story is rather wretched. Almost as if Patel's unfit for high office.1 -
It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.4
-
F1: probably not my kind of thing, but there's an F1 manager game coming out in summer.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.new-f1-manager-2022-game-set-for-summer-release.2ZXn7fuS4g7qWDc5e91WEa.html1 -
Every Conservative MP needs to read today’s #Times leader. They must tell @pritipatel & #BorisJohnson ‘s spads, PPS’s & whips the British people are appalled & ashamed at their failure to offer safe haven to #Ukraine refugees & we won’t forget come the next election https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1501095836784152581/photo/10
-
...
0 -
Its nice you think of me but I do not think I have made any comment at all on this matterkjh said:See we can't be arsed to set up a visa office in Calais. I'm sure @NerysHughes will be here shortly to justify it. British citizen rescues his Ukrainian wife and children then struggles to get over that last strip of water between Calais and Dover. Embarrassing.
1 -
Yes. I posted it earlier. It is a disgrace. What effort is required to set up an office in Calais compared to those British citizens rescuing their Ukrainian relatives. It is appalling. Just heard on news that if they do now make their way to Paris or Brussels the next appointment is 17 March. What is wrong with these people.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, you may be aware that the 11th century was rather different to our own...
Incidentally, that Ukrainian/Channel story is rather wretched. Almost as if Patel's unfit for high office.2 -
Official German behaviour in 1933-45 was appalling, including in their Occupied Territories. However a converse experience; in the 70's I hosted, as an employer, several German students on work-experience, and never came across hostility to themtlg86 said:
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.OldKingCole said:
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.tlg86 said:
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.OldKingCole said:Good morning everyone.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence.
That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.0 -
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.3 -
Rumours on twitter that Russian communications are a mess. Trouble is how would they know about a humanitarian corridor or ceasefire if it happened?0
-
Well quite. Humans are generally quite tolerant. I'm not sure why you'd think less of the Irish in this regard.OldKingCole said:
Official German behaviour in 1933-45 was appalling, including in their Occupied Territories. However a converse experience; in the 70's I hosted, as an employer, several German students on work-experience, and never came across hostility to themtlg86 said:
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.OldKingCole said:
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.tlg86 said:
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.OldKingCole said:Good morning everyone.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence.
That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.1 -
What is wrong?kjh said:
Yes. I posted it earlier. It is a disgrace. What effort is required to set up an office in Calais compared to those British citizens rescuing their Ukrainian relatives. It is appalling. Just heard on news that if they do now make their way to Paris or Brussels the next appointment is 17 March. What is wrong with these people.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, you may be aware that the 11th century was rather different to our own...
Incidentally, that Ukrainian/Channel story is rather wretched. Almost as if Patel's unfit for high office.
1. Basic level nasty spiteful politicians
2. Dog whistle racism has been a vote winner for them in the past
3. Lying about something so obviously untrue is now a reflex. Patel lies in the Commons as easily as she breathes in the Commons. They think we are so stupid that we will believe their lies. Clearly some people are.0 -
Twenty years ago, a friend of mine got in trouble scuba diving off Malta. She is blonde, and was picked up by a coastguard helicopter.tlg86 said:
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.OldKingCole said:
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.tlg86 said:
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.OldKingCole said:Good morning everyone.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence.
That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.
Once in, they asked her: "Are you German?"
Thinking that they might be about to chuck her out, she replied, "No, British."
"Ah," they said, "We charge the Germans, not the British."
These attitudes can last, even as jokes.0 -
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.0 -
By Frontier, makers of the Elite game (and various zoo/dinosaur ones).Morris_Dancer said:F1: probably not my kind of thing, but there's an F1 manager game coming out in summer.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.new-f1-manager-2022-game-set-for-summer-release.2ZXn7fuS4g7qWDc5e91WEa.html
An acquaintance is working on it. She is being *very* tight-lipped, damn her!
1 -
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.rcs1000 said:
Oil is fungible.MattW said:
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.MoonRabbit said:Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues?
I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
Plus there seems to be some scope for increasing our own production:
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/government-should-loosen-gas-rules-amid-price-spike-north-sea-firm-says-b1924229.html
And our oil imports from Russia are only about 10%. Though oil is more complex, as it is a more categorised product.
The main issue for us is linkage of prices we pay to world prices.
There's a good thread from the Bus and Energy Secretary here:
https://twitter.com/KwasiKwarteng/status/1498197281144725505
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.0 -
As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself.
On a personal level, I am still extremely critical of his policies both towards Ukraine and on the domestic sanctions push. But people here see Britain as being a more reliable ally now than the US and the EU. I can only speak anecdotally of course, but it’s still my experience.
Britain’s treatment of refugees in particular remains a global disgrace, and I think if people here understood the extent of it, it would definitely change their perspective.
But sending NLAWs while the rest of the world was trying to appease Putin the fascist dictator has definitely won many hearts and minds here. Ukrainians wanted arms to defend their homes and their families, Britain supplied them. It’s black and white as far as many are concerned.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/15009271395704012831 -
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.BartholomewRoberts said:
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.0 -
Off the scale again - way too much turnip wine with the cornflakes.malcolmg said:
Who would have thought a Franco supporter would have had that bent opinion.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.0 -
People say that like it was a surprise. It was always the plan wasnt it? Wellington stood his ground knowing Blucher was coming and Blucher came as he trusted Wellington could hold the ground till he got there.OldKingCole said:
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.tlg86 said:
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.OldKingCole said:Good morning everyone.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence.
That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.3 -
Yes you did. You continuously defended it yesterday. It is appalling that you are so blinkered you will defend anything this government does . Patel and her operation is a disgrace in this respect, yet you defended our action on Ukrainian refugees.NerysHughes said:
Its nice you think of me but I do not think I have made any comment at all on this matterkjh said:See we can't be arsed to set up a visa office in Calais. I'm sure @NerysHughes will be here shortly to justify it. British citizen rescues his Ukrainian wife and children then struggles to get over that last strip of water between Calais and Dover. Embarrassing.
Praise where deserved (supply of material) criticize when we do it wrong. We are doing this wrong. We are putting people through hell at the end of a traumatic journey.2 -
I don't. Very friendly, hospitable people. The only somewhat unpleasant Irishman I've ever met was someone who came to UK to fight in Afghanistan. His uncle subsequently told me that he's experimented with explosives since being a small boy.tlg86 said:
Well quite. Humans are generally quite tolerant. I'm not sure why you'd think less of the Irish in this regard.OldKingCole said:
Official German behaviour in 1933-45 was appalling, including in their Occupied Territories. However a converse experience; in the 70's I hosted, as an employer, several German students on work-experience, and never came across hostility to themtlg86 said:
So? 1939-45 changed all that. My dad tells me that he was in a cafe in the Netherlands in the early 80s and there were a couple of young lads in there. They were speaking German and the owner of the cafe kicked them out. I guess the animosity was a whole lot greater where the Germans had occupied. I suspect Russians are going to have to put up with that sort of treatment for many years to come.OldKingCole said:
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.tlg86 said:
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.OldKingCole said:Good morning everyone.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence.
That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
But eventually it will fade (assuming we're not wiped out in global thermonuclear war!), and people will move on.
I'm not sure the Irish are any more special in that regard.0 -
Mr. Jessop, it's an interesting step. I suspect they won't allow subterfuge and espionage, but that would be rather fun.0
-
And you can point to the line in the legislation that states that? And the line in our constitution where existing law is sacrosanct and cannot be amended rescinded or overturned?felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
I do NOT support Scottish independence. I am standing for election representing a party opposed to independence. But I am a democrat and the expressed will of the Scottish electorate is for another vote. Saying "you can't have the thing you voted for" - what you just posted - is the polar opposite of your previous statement of "The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters."
We want it, you are stopping us. Well not you are you are in Spain, but the party you support.0 -
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?FF43 said:
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.rcs1000 said:
Oil is fungible.MattW said:
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.MoonRabbit said:Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues?
I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
Plus there seems to be some scope for increasing our own production:
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/government-should-loosen-gas-rules-amid-price-spike-north-sea-firm-says-b1924229.html
And our oil imports from Russia are only about 10%. Though oil is more complex, as it is a more categorised product.
The main issue for us is linkage of prices we pay to world prices.
There's a good thread from the Bus and Energy Secretary here:
https://twitter.com/KwasiKwarteng/status/1498197281144725505
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.0 -
Wheest you silly old fool.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:7 -
Didn't realise it was a cunning plan. Thanks.kle4 said:
People say that like it was a surprise. It was always the plan wasnt it? Wellington stood his ground knowing Blucher was coming and Blucher came as he trusted Wellington could hold the ground till he got there.OldKingCole said:
The conglomerate nation which is the UK has only been in an 'unfriendly' situation with the Germans for about 70 years. Before then there were much more friendly; even got several kings and royal consorts from what is now Germany. And Wellington would have been in deep trouble at Waterloo had Blucher and the (mainly) Prussian army not arrived.tlg86 said:
Is it remarkable? I don't hold anything against the Germans, for example.OldKingCole said:Good morning everyone.
I see our young friend from SW Essex has taken against the Irish now. A people abused by the Anglo Norman aristocracy for centuries and mocked by the Saxons as a consequence.
That they are prepared to be friendly to us is remarkable, and a tribute to their generosity.
Fact remains though that even Wellington admitted it was 'a damn close run thing'!0 -
Bigger and badder weapons than NATO?RochdalePioneers said:
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.BartholomewRoberts said:
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Russia is fast losing its air force, based on the estimated losses so far. If that continues then bizarrely we could end up in a situation whereby the Ukrainians end up with air superiority - and who could have guessed that at the start?0 -
That's nice to hear. There is still time for us to do more on refugees I hope.CarlottaVance said:As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself.
On a personal level, I am still extremely critical of his policies both towards Ukraine and on the domestic sanctions push. But people here see Britain as being a more reliable ally now than the US and the EU. I can only speak anecdotally of course, but it’s still my experience.
Britain’s treatment of refugees in particular remains a global disgrace, and I think if people here understood the extent of it, it would definitely change their perspective.
But sending NLAWs while the rest of the world was trying to appease Putin the fascist dictator has definitely won many hearts and minds here. Ukrainians wanted arms to defend their homes and their families, Britain supplied them. It’s black and white as far as many are concerned.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/15009271395704012830 -
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc.Jonathan said:It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.0 -
That would certainly be something!BartholomewRoberts said:
Bigger and badder weapons than NATO?RochdalePioneers said:
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.BartholomewRoberts said:
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Russia is fast losing its air force, based on the estimated losses so far. If that continues then bizarrely we could end up in a situation whereby the Ukrainians end up with air superiority - and who could have guessed that at the start?0 -
Just as a matter of interest, what are the Ukrainians doing with Russians who surrender?RochdalePioneers said:
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.BartholomewRoberts said:
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.0 -
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.malcolmg said:
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc.Jonathan said:It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.0 -
Struggling to understand what you were on about, I ran across this.Dura_Ace said:
The GAF have two requirements:rcs1000 said:
Ultimately, the Germans have four options:
(1) Buy the F35
(2) Buy the Saab Grippen
(3) Fuck around attempting to make the Eurofughter Typhoon into something it isn't and waste billions
(4) Do nothing
My view - fwiw - is that option (2) is probably the best, quickest and most cost efficient route forward. And while it wouldn't create true fifth gen fighter, the reality is that a decent fourth gen one - that doesn't suffer from a long list of defects and low uptime - would serve Germany very well.
1. Replace the Buchel wing Tornado IDS with a platform cleared for B61 carriage and release under NATO's nuclear weapon sharing program.
2. Replace the Schleswig wing Tornado ECR with a DEAD/SEAD capable platform.
Gripen can fulfill neither of these missions.
At one point last year the thinking was F/A-18E for the B61 mission and EA-18G for the ECR/SEAD mission. This actually makes quite a lot of sense as its a common platform and they get all of the USN economies of scale.
Now the situation has developed since AKK left office and the favoured plan appears to be F-35A for Buchel and a new ECR version of Typhoon which only exists in PowerPoint form for Schleswig. They also have the 'Quadriga' Typhoon program going on which replaces 38 x Tranche 1 jets with the latest spec. in a job creation scheme that, much like Gripen, satisfies neither Requirement 1 nor Requirement 2.
https://corporalfrisk.com/tag/jas-39-gripen-2/
Do these modern combat sims bear any relation to the real world ?
The most interesting thing to me was the apparent overwhelming importance of the number of longer range missiles carried.0 -
How do you imagine that when we are forbidden a vote by our much larger neighbour, forbidden to join EU. Who is the deluded fool. You may not like to admit it but it is reality, we do not have free votes in Scotland.Cicero said:
Wheest you silly old fool.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:
Apart from the violence it is no different. Also as you see it only needs Tories like Hyfud to get nearer power and even that could change.0 -
You look in your spam folder?IanB2 said:Only one email in my spam folder overnight; remarkable.
0 -
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.0 -
That's a cable for power from a proposed very large scale solar development.OldKingCole said:
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?FF43 said:
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.rcs1000 said:
Oil is fungible.MattW said:
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.MoonRabbit said:Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues?
I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
Plus there seems to be some scope for increasing our own production:
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/government-should-loosen-gas-rules-amid-price-spike-north-sea-firm-says-b1924229.html
And our oil imports from Russia are only about 10%. Though oil is more complex, as it is a more categorised product.
The main issue for us is linkage of prices we pay to world prices.
There's a good thread from the Bus and Energy Secretary here:
https://twitter.com/KwasiKwarteng/status/1498197281144725505
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Which is a great idea, but not immediately relevant.0 -
Except that Scotland voted to stay in the cellar. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps.RochdalePioneers said:
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.malcolmg said:
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc.Jonathan said:It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.2 -
Obliged. Old men's memories are not always reliable!Nigelb said:
That's a cable for power from a proposed very large scale solar development.OldKingCole said:
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?FF43 said:
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.rcs1000 said:
Oil is fungible.MattW said:
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.MoonRabbit said:Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues?
I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
Plus there seems to be some scope for increasing our own production:
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/government-should-loosen-gas-rules-amid-price-spike-north-sea-firm-says-b1924229.html
And our oil imports from Russia are only about 10%. Though oil is more complex, as it is a more categorised product.
The main issue for us is linkage of prices we pay to world prices.
There's a good thread from the Bus and Energy Secretary here:
https://twitter.com/KwasiKwarteng/status/1498197281144725505
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Which is a great idea, but not immediately relevant.0 -
Obviously no comparison to the KGB, but there are very slight hints that the police in Scotland are starting to monitor social media in ways that aren't particularly wholesome.Cicero said:
Wheest you silly old fool.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:0 -
Thinking about the gas issue.
I was thinking of a scheme the EU could run. Russian gas would be sanctioned with a monopoly organisation purchasing restricted amounts at prices set to those of 2019, ie one third of now. They would sell on the gas at a slight premium to world prices to encourage consumers to find other sources. The difference between the buying and selling price goes to a fund for humanitarian aid and reconstruction of Ukraine.
The advantages of such a scheme are:
1. Sufficient gas is available in Europe
2. Russia doesn't benefit from high prices
3. A funding scheme is set up for Ukrainian reconstruction, which will be needed after this war and is a way to get Russia to pay part of this. ie this will be a permanent scheme for Russian gas after the war.
4. Russia can't undercut on pricing to sabotage investments in diversification.
Russia might not play ball of course. But it doesn't have alternative customers for this gas and it needs the euros.1 -
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.1 -
I'm getting to know that myself... 😊OldKingCole said:
Obliged. Old men's memories are not always reliable!Nigelb said:
That's a cable for power from a proposed very large scale solar development.OldKingCole said:
Wasn't there something about a pipeline from Morocco?FF43 said:
Also in a big way on Norwegian gas. Ultimately Norway can sell their gas to who they want.rcs1000 said:
Oil is fungible.MattW said:
The UK is not dependent on paying Putin, as less than 5% of our gas comes from Russia.MoonRabbit said:Maybe a downer this post, unless you have some cheery answers
*oil, gas, Big Macs
The UK appear to be announcing all sorts of plans for extra drilling of North sea for Gas and Oil tonight. It seems the markets were spooked today by the push, largely from US, to stop paying Putin for Gas and Oil. Which does make sense, why punish breadline Russians when at same time we are pouring money into the Kremlin?
With the EU saying to UK, hurry up and pillage your Oligarchs, US saying to EU, our consumers are happy to be Russian free on energy use hurry up and do the same - it’s obvious not everyone is exposed in the same way. Whilst we are cancelling the Russian peoples access to Premiership football and shaming McDonalds for still trading there, European governments still handing Putin’s government the money to stay afloat and fund his war. When can we turn off our supply of good money straight into Putin’s regime?
If McDonalds shut, that’s some low paid people who don’t have much say in sane government in Kremlin out of a job. Are we now just picking low hanging fruit to make ourselves feel better? The right way to do this sanctioning is target the evil regime, not the poor everyday Russian people who we actually want on our side?
How soon can EU and UK be less dependent on paying Putin, without ravaged by supply and price issues?
I fear the answer is much more than weeks isn’t it?
Plus there seems to be some scope for increasing our own production:
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/government-should-loosen-gas-rules-amid-price-spike-north-sea-firm-says-b1924229.html
And our oil imports from Russia are only about 10%. Though oil is more complex, as it is a more categorised product.
The main issue for us is linkage of prices we pay to world prices.
There's a good thread from the Bus and Energy Secretary here:
https://twitter.com/KwasiKwarteng/status/1498197281144725505
If Germany or Italy stops buys Russian oil, then they compete with us for Mexican or Saudi Arabian oil.
We both get hit equally.
Gas is more complex, but there we are incredibly dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If we're competing with Germany for them... well, we'll both be hit equally.
Which is a great idea, but not immediately relevant.1 -
Yep. But now that it wants to get out the door has been locked. The person locking the door is saying the only person responsible is the one locked in the cellar.Eabhal said:
Except that Scotland voted to stay in the cellar. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps.RochdalePioneers said:
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.malcolmg said:
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc.Jonathan said:It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
We aren't that far from "its puts the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again".1 -
That isn't a bit of gun-jumping is it? Related to new powers the British Government is about to give the police.Eabhal said:
Obviously no comparison to the KGB, but there are very slight hints that the police in Scotland are starting to monitor social media in ways that aren't particularly wholesome.Cicero said:
Wheest you silly old fool.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:0 -
I know nothing about this stuff, but as that doesn't stop anyone else I'll give my tuppence worth. To me the big problem is artillery fired from a distance that the Ukrainians can do nothing about. If they bizarrely did get air superiority I assume that changes and they can even attack artillery in Russia.BartholomewRoberts said:
Bigger and badder weapons than NATO?RochdalePioneers said:
All this is true - but doesn't Russia have bigger badder weapons in reserve? Crap troops and crap vehicles stuck on roads with no fuel and no food aside, they can just fire salvos of missiles into cities as they have been doing.BartholomewRoberts said:
On the final sentence Chameleon, while all soldiers and pilots etc are irreplaceable of course on both sides, strategically I would say its the polar opposite.Chameleon said:Good health warning: https://twitter.com/ErrantStrategry/status/1500904280034885635
I sat through an intel update this afternoon. While I can’t get specific, what I will say is that the view of the war that we are getting from expertly curated UKR IO is giving a lot of folks an impression of not only RUS incompetence but also UKR dominance. The excellent work of accounts like @RALee85 and @OSINTtechnical further reinforce this. They are not pushing disinfo, but they are providing reinforcement of an impression that the RF are wholly indisciplined and wildly incompetent. The RF absolutely feature these things. But what we are not seeing is the mil successes they are having. Recall they are advancing and they are taking ground. Just really slow. The fact is that RUS is having some success, and while they’ve lost a sizable amount of personnel and equipment, it’s only a small percentage of the total they brought. While each UKR loss, especially of their regular soldiers and pilots, is irreplaceable.
Russian tech seems to be of a very limited supply - sure they started out with more, but they lack the money or equipment to replace any losses.
Ukrainian tech seems to be virtually unlimited. Thousands of missiles and weaponry etc from all across NATO can flood into Ukraine on a daily basis.
Its logistics that win wars in the long-run and Russia has none. Ukraine has the full backing of NATO.
Russia's only hope was for a short, sharp blitzkrieg of shock and awe. Every day that passes, every day of heavy Russian losses, tilts the balance firmly in the direction of the defenders.
Plus of course with personnel, while Russia has more regular troops (most of whom are conscripts who don't want to be there and aren't professionals) Ukraine has more volunteers fighting to defend their homeland.
OK so that makes installing Yanukovic as puppet and transforming Ukraine into a puppet fiefdom harder, but perhaps Putin will settle for ruins as an alternative to an angry defiant member of the EU and NATO.
Russia is fast losing its air force, based on the estimated losses so far. If that continues then bizarrely we could end up in a situation whereby the Ukrainians end up with air superiority - and who could have guessed that at the start?
Cloud cuckoo land stuff?
0 -
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.0 -
That was a long time ago, fact is we are being denied a democratic vote. We are prisoners held by our large bully neighbour , a sanctimonious one at that who trumpets about democracy , freedom and right to choose for everyone , except SCOTLAND.Eabhal said:
Except that Scotland voted to stay in the cellar. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps.RochdalePioneers said:
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.malcolmg said:
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc.Jonathan said:It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.0 -
Totally agree , they got such a fright last time that they will do anything to never allow a free vote again.RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.0 -
In terms of cockpit layout, procedures, etc. they are very good. I've flown the F-14B in DCS and in terms of simulating, say, an engine out drill it was better than the actual F-14 simulator (which admittedly was designed and built in the 70s).Nigelb said:
Do these modern combat sims bear any relation to the real world ?
In terms of how it compares to flying the real aircraft it's absolutely nothing like it as it can't simulate the physical or sensory aspects.
PC based helicopter sims get a bit closer if you have hydraulically damped stick, collective, etc.0 -
Yes if one of the elite report your tweet , they will be round to get you for hate crimes. Be interesting to see how much they have to pay Mark H for wrongful arrest etc, house raided by the 20+ strong Salmond task force and all because he used a very well know phrase known to be harmless. Lucky for him he was tried in the borders.Eabhal said:
Obviously no comparison to the KGB, but there are very slight hints that the police in Scotland are starting to monitor social media in ways that aren't particularly wholesome.Cicero said:
Wheest you silly old fool.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
Of course Scotland is a free country. Its why you can spout your sweary rubbish wihout the Police knocking on your door. Its why you can vote for Alba, even when its led by a morally compromised bampot like Salmond, Its why you can campaign in complete freedom to leave the UK.
My friends in Belarus have had to flee for their lives when the KGB knocked on their door in the middle of the night. You lose your temper when you cant find your slippers.
The fact that you make the comparison is probably the most offensive thing you have ever posted here.
It is why the majority of Scots are totally turned off by the foam fleck rage of old farts and perfectly happy to stay a part of the free UK:0 -
Where they make a desert they call it peace:
https://twitter.com/girkingirkin/status/1501100807378378755?s=21
(Building ruins only - but other tweets from author have graphic images of child bodies)0 -
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.3 -
It was in the Scottish Government’s prospectus “Scotland’s Future”.malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
In black and white.
Written down.
Not some “off the cuff” remark in a TV interview as some of the more credulous Nats like to claim.0 -
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).BartholomewRoberts said:
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P0 -
Not very often - but lets be clear this vote won't be for another few years so a decade at least after the first one. Things have clearly changed significantly since the 2014 referendum creating rationale for another vote. The electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote. So it is simply anti-democratic to say no.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
A new referendum bill should have a clause that there can't be a rerun within a set period and everyone be clear about that. Yes parliament has sovereignty and can overturn that law but at least this time it would be clear and agreed up front.
Better still would be everyone in the UK being given a vote on a new federal constitution which fixes the Scottish and NI self-determination issues and England's lack of representation. But there is fat chance of that so we're probably facing down Scotland and NI both leaving the Union so voted for by their respective citizens.0 -
We do need to lance the boil though. Down south everyone is Brexit possessed and making silly comparisons between the EU and the UK on support for Ukraine; up here we only ever discuss the constitution rather than really important stuff like the dualling of the A9, ferries and hill paths legislation.Eabhal said:
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).BartholomewRoberts said:
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P2 -
It was not in the agreement or the referendum at all. No manner of unionist revisionism can make it real.CarlottaVance said:
It was in the Scottish Government’s prospectus “Scotland’s Future”.malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
In black and white.
Written down.
Not some “off the cuff” remark in a TV interview as some of the more credulous Nats like to claim.
Democracy has been denied to Scotland, whilst Westminster trumpets about freedom for all countries but Scotland.0 -
Keep chanting your mantra. Unless it was in the legislation it wasn't a legal position. And if it was in the legislation that can be changed. So what is your point? Other than being against there being monsters in your bedroom cupboard.CarlottaVance said:
It was in the Scottish Government’s prospectus “Scotland’s Future”.malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
In black and white.
Written down.
Not some “off the cuff” remark in a TV interview as some of the more credulous Nats like to claim.0 -
THIS THREAD IS OFF THE TABLE0
-
I inherited a decent amount when my father died. I’d give it all back for 10 minutes with him. And if my mum wished to spend it all on cruises and expensive restaurants all power to her. It’s not my money.HYUFD said:
Nope, hence the next generation will inherit more from them than ever before and many already get help with deposits.dixiedean said:
And then kept it all for themselves.HYUFD said:
Nor does it mean abuse as the whinging pathetic original post originally did.kle4 said:
Respecting wisdom and experience does not mean automatic acceptance of the will of those elders, or abasement to their wishes. Respect does not mean gerontocracy.HYUFD said:
The most secure and stable societies respect the wisdom and experience of their eldersdixiedean said:
Why?HYUFD said:
I ain't no boomer, I am 40. However I respect my elderskyf_100 said:
Ok, boomer.HYUFD said:
No, those whinging are spoilt brats on the whole (and not all that generation to be fair are whiners, some actually get on with it without complaint).kyf_100 said:
People complaining about this post ought to realise that people in their 20s have been locked up for 2 years for a disease that hardly affects them, charged through the nose for university tuition (in some cases for little more than 2 years of glorified youtube videos and zoom calls), have watched house prices rise far faster than they could ever save for a deposit, witnessed (mostly) old people vote away their rights to live and work in Europe (if that's your thing), all while being told they're lazy, feckless and overprivileged.Bournville said:I'm so tired of this. I'm in my 20s and my entire adult life has been consumed by bitter old Boomers trying to destroy the world before they die. Just fuck off and let us have a chance for once
Little wonder they're angry at the old order.
There are tuition fees now as 20 year olds today are more likely to have been to university than any generation before them, have a longer life expectancy than any generation before them, have more freedom in their private lives than any generation before them and have never had to fight a war.
The fact they might have been less likely to die from Covid than older people is also something they should be grateful for not whinging about and they have no restrictions again now.
20 year olds will also inherit more than any generation from their parents and grandparents too through those same house price rises and many also get help with deposits from their parents and grandparents as well, especially in London and the Home Counties.
As for free movement, plenty of working class 20 year olds voted Leave precisely because there was free movement of unskilled labour undercutting their wages now resolved by the points system we have. Even if middle class 20 year old Remainers find gap yahs take a bit extra paperwork
Age confers no moral superiority at all. Nor no need for deference. It's just not having died yet
Some of the stuff people have come up with like restricting voting of people above a certain age is just wrong, but it isn't required to take a comedically extreme stance in opposition to prove your respect for elderly people. They're just people.
Boomers generally created the most peaceful time in the western world in human history, created more wealth in the western world for the next generation than there has been in human history and more freedom than there has been in the western world than at any time before following the changes from the 1960s on.
I say that as someone who thinks some of those freedoms went too far
If they were really keeping it for themselves they would downsize and spend the proceeds on cruises and expensive restaurants1 -
Saved by the BellCarlottaVance said:THIS THREAD IS OFF THE TABLE
0 -
Even one per parliament is too much. These things take time to organise, then time for campaigning, then time for mopping up the impacts on business, government, society etc.Eabhal said:
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).BartholomewRoberts said:
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.0 -
Are you free to have a referendum? Well, you had one recently (and you voted to stay). So, clearly, you were free to have a referendum.malcolmg said:
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc.Jonathan said:It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.
Are you free to have multiple referendums whenever one side of the argument wants? No, but that’s about politics rather than freedoms. Polling shows a majority opposed to a second referendum right now anyway, so I don’t see a democracy problem.
Are you free to join the EU? The EU won’t take you because you are not an independent country. You’re not an independent country because you democratically chose not to be.
0 -
I imagine it is being said for a reason, as with Abe’s comment on nukes.Nigelb said:
It’s been repeated elsewhere, FWIW.Chameleon said:
That account tweets a lot of rubbish, but if true, should force a major repositioning of Russian forces.Nigelb said:Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida just condemned Russia for its occupation of the southern part of the Kuril Islands.
In this statement in Parliament, he said that the islands are “original territories of Japan”.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1500827047362449408
0 -
And that is why I disagree with Alex Cole-Hamilton and his position on just saying No. He correctly wants to talk about actual issues and policies. But we can't because there are two large elephants in the room - the Brexit fall-out and the constitution.Eabhal said:
We do need to lance the boil though. Down south everyone is Brexit possessed and making silly comparisons between the EU and the UK on support for Ukraine; up here we only ever discuss the constitution rather than really important stuff like the dualling of the A9, ferries and hill paths legislation.Eabhal said:
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).BartholomewRoberts said:
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
So lets have another vote. No would win. Then we move on.0 -
Polling does not support your contention that a majority want to consider again. Nor is “shotgun marriage” remotely accurate for what was a long process.RochdalePioneers said:
Scotland isn't the UK's neighbour though - wife is a better analogy. There was a shorgun marriage between England and Scotland that a majority want to consider again if divorce might be better. England is the embittered husband locking its Scottish wife in the cellar saying you want to go out but I'm not going to let you.malcolmg said:
Without the bombs it is identical or do you know something different. Are we free to have a referendum , join the EU , etc , etc.Jonathan said:It’s in pretty bad taste to equate Russia-Ukraine to England-Scotland. Undermines the case for independence.
Very bad taste to keep your neighbour prisoner whilst pontificating about freedom and democracy.0 -
If anything Russia's invasion of Ukraine if followed by Chinese invasion of Taiwan means independence of smaller nations is less viable not more if larger neighbours want to keep them in unionRochdalePioneers said:
Even one per parliament is too much. These things take time to organise, then time for campaigning, then time for mopping up the impacts on business, government, society etc.Eabhal said:
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).BartholomewRoberts said:
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.0 -
We aren't as the UK government will continue to refuse indyref2 and the Union is reserved to Westminster and Unionist parties win more votes than Nationalist in NIRochdalePioneers said:
Not very often - but lets be clear this vote won't be for another few years so a decade at least after the first one. Things have clearly changed significantly since the 2014 referendum creating rationale for another vote. The electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote. So it is simply anti-democratic to say no.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
A new referendum bill should have a clause that there can't be a rerun within a set period and everyone be clear about that. Yes parliament has sovereignty and can overturn that law but at least this time it would be clear and agreed up front.
Better still would be everyone in the UK being given a vote on a new federal constitution which fixes the Scottish and NI self-determination issues and England's lack of representation. But there is fat chance of that so we're probably facing down Scotland and NI both leaving the Union so voted for by their respective citizens.0 -
Why do you keep repeating this, as though it has any bearing on relations between England and Scotland?HYUFD said:
If anything Russia's invasion of Ukraine if followed by Chinese invasion if Taiwan means independence of smaller nations is less viable not more if larger neighbours want to keep them in unionRochdalePioneers said:
Even one per parliament is too much. These things take time to organise, then time for campaigning, then time for mopping up the impacts on business, government, society etc.Eabhal said:
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).BartholomewRoberts said:
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.
You'd just love England to be the cartoonish bully of the imagination of Scottish Nationalists.1 -
The electorate have voted for the SNP (and Greens). People vote for parties and candidates for a wide variety of reasons. Independence is not those parties’ only positions. So, is it fair to say the electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote? Polling suggests a majority remain opposed to a second vote in the short term.RochdalePioneers said:
Not very often - but lets be clear this vote won't be for another few years so a decade at least after the first one. Things have clearly changed significantly since the 2014 referendum creating rationale for another vote. The electorate have clearly spoken in favour of another vote. So it is simply anti-democratic to say no.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
A new referendum bill should have a clause that there can't be a rerun within a set period and everyone be clear about that. Yes parliament has sovereignty and can overturn that law but at least this time it would be clear and agreed up front.
Better still would be everyone in the UK being given a vote on a new federal constitution which fixes the Scottish and NI self-determination issues and England's lack of representation. But there is fat chance of that so we're probably facing down Scotland and NI both leaving the Union so voted for by their respective citizens.
Independence is not the same as putting a penny on income tax or most other policies. It makes sense that there are more checks and balances on it. Are the current Edinburgh and London governments going about this the right way? No, probably not. But I’m not convinced by cries of “anti-democratic”.0 -
Check out the amazing World of Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum. It’s so good I’m going back again this week. I’ve NEVER revisited a temporary exhibition beforeFoxy said:
Its quite striking how people moved around a lot, and often vast distances in olden times, intermarrying and living new lives. The good old days?Wulfrun_Phil said:
https://deremilitari.org/2014/06/english-refugees-in-the-byzantine-armed-forces-the-varangian-guard-and-anglo-saxon-ethnic-consciousness/Richard_Tyndall said:
I think that was one of the tidbits mentioned in The Last King English King by Julian Rathbone. A truly wondrous book.Gardenwalker said:I am surprised nobody has mentioned the obscure suggestion that a colony of Varangian English settled on the shore of the Black Sea after the Norman Invasion.
Something like that. I can’t find it on Google, but it’s definitely a thing.
Perhaps we could have that bit.
"According to the recently discovered Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis, a group of English notables immigrated to Byzantium in 235 ships, reaching Constantinople in 1075. Some 4350 of the emigrants and their families remained in Constantinople in imperial service, while a majority of the refugees sailed to a place called Domapia, six days’ journey from Byzantium, conquered it and renamed it Nova Anglia (New England)."
Also, this bit may be of use to Ukranians needing to cite family links when applying for UK visas:
"For example, ties between the Kievan Rus’ and England were not unknown. The exiled Gyda, daughter of Harold II Godwinson, married Kievan Prince Vladimir Monomakh..."
They have this thing called the NEBRA SKY DISC. The oldest known map of the cosmos. 4000 years old. A flat metallic orrery. Unearthed a few years ago in Germany. Yet the gold embedded in it… comes from Cornwall
Or see the buried archer from near Stonehenge. The Amesbury grave. Also about 4000 years old. Yet this guy was born in the Alps?!
It’s a mind blowing, spine tingling exhibition. Go!
1 -
As if you add in Spain's denial of the Catalan government even one independence referendum, Westminster's denial of indyref2 leaves them anything but isolated internationallyLostPassword said:
Why do you keep repeating this, as though it has any bearing on relations between England and Scotland?HYUFD said:
If anything Russia's invasion of Ukraine if followed by Chinese invasion if Taiwan means independence of smaller nations is less viable not more if larger neighbours want to keep them in unionRochdalePioneers said:
Even one per parliament is too much. These things take time to organise, then time for campaigning, then time for mopping up the impacts on business, government, society etc.Eabhal said:
Of course. But I think max one per parliament (and thus mandate).BartholomewRoberts said:
As often as the public vote for it.Eabhal said:
How often would you like a referendum?RochdalePioneers said:
Lets assume for a minute that instead of it being a throw-away comment about how long it had taken to get to a referendum, and instead had actually been written into the legislation. A legally-binding clause that 2014 would be "once in a generation".malcolmg said:
That is a bare faced lie, show me where in the Edinburgh agreement that was written, and do not give me the bollox fact that Salmond said on a broadcast that it was a once in ageneration chance.felix said:
A 'once in a generation vote'.RochdalePioneers said:
How does that work? Scottish voters just turned out in record numbers to vote in a national election to elect a record number of pro-independence MSPs. And are being told no by the Essicks Massiv, that however we vote we can't have it.felix said:
Your absurdity is barely exceeded these days by your language. The only people stopping Scottish independence are Scottish voters.malcolmg said:
Most certainly is NOT. We are ruled by bour much bigger neighbour who will not let us be independent or join the EU. Strange parallels with just the bombs missing.OnlyLivingBoy said:
So Scotland isn't a free country?Luckyguy1983 said:
I doubt it, and I most certainly hope not. An independent army is an essential feature of a free country.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I expect the UK will be very much part of the EU defence planning and indeed a closer relationship all roundLuckyguy1983 said:
8n the future, the EU will have its own defence force, that could defend RUkraine. Of course, I don't see how that's any better for Russia. But I suppose it won't be lead by the US or include the UK. So perhaps its more palatable.kle4 said:A repeat message, to the people of Europe:
If you even think about joining NATO we will invade you.
If you are in NATO we probably won't.
Therefore, please stop wanting to join NATO.
BARE FACED LIE.
Would that stop this government or any government passing a new law which removes this clause from the previous law?
As the answer to that hypothetical is "no" I have to ask what point Felix and HY etc are trying to make? It wasn't once in a generation legally and if it had been that means nothing. Its like a mantra, chanted by scared little girls about there not really being monsters in the cupboard.
Its called democracy.
You do have to recognise that it's a one way street. It would never be a best of three if Yes won, or a 2nd confirmatory referendum.
Perhaps one per week and we take an average over a 5 year period? :P
For all that "you've just had one" gets thrown about it will have been at least 10 years as the absolute minimum. So we're already into long gaps.
There is a real juxtaposition here to consider. We say "we support self-determination for free peoples" when it comes to Ukraine. But not Scotland. The world is changing very rapidly because of this war, and sadly for HY et al the "NO NO NO" position on internal self-determination is no longer sustainable.
Either make a positive case for the Union or there is no positive case. Locking Scotland in the cellar is not making a positive case for staying in the house.
You'd just love England to be the cartoonish bully of the imagination of Scottish Nationalists.0
