I've checked back to something I read some time ago and here it is - from as much of a neutral observer as one can get in the media those days (even if Iain Macwhirter has moved over to Yes lately):
"But whatever happened to the Tartan Monster, as the writer Tom Nairn used to call it. That narrow-minded and introverted Scottish nationalism that celebrated mediocrity and nourished itself on resentment of England? It’s not all that long ago that the annual Scotland versus England football fixture had to be abandoned for fear of tartan hordes rioting and smashing the goal posts at Wembley.
Well, I’m beginning to wonder if that kind of emotional nationalism still exists in Scotland. Like homophobia and anti-English racialism – which again metropolitan commentators insist is on the rise despite all evidence to the contrary – it largely died out after the creation of the Scottish Parliament. But what about the evil cybernats, supposedly lurking in social media ready to vent bile upon famous female authors and persons of English origin?. Where are they? If the Usain Bolt story in The Times was an attempt to provoke some cybernat anger, it failed. Their impact was always greatly exaggerated and more than equalled by the virulently anti-Scottish and anti-Yes trolling that for some reason the Scottish and UK press rarely report.
So if Scots have set aside childish things, does that mean their national identity is no longer an issue in Scottish politics? No, I don’t think so. As I have argued before, it is being expressed in a different form – in the language of secular politics rather than national chauvinism. Scotland increasingly thinks of itself as a country defined by social democratic values – what the cultural historian Billy Kay calls Scotland’s “rampant egalitarian traditions”. Like all myths, this one probably doesn’t stand up to too much critical examination – but if you have to have national myths, I can think of worse ones."
I worry that a close No might see an uprising of "tartan monsters". Do you think that's a possibility?
About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
In the UK, 21% of married Chinese-descent people have married outside their ethnic group. 4% of those of Pakistani-descent have, and 3% of those of Bangladeshi-descent.
That's just plain wrong. Ever heard of tower hamlets? Home of estates where Isis flags fly
In the UK, 21% of married Chinese-descent people have married outside their ethnic group. 4% of those of Pakistani-descent have, and 3% of those of Bangladeshi-descent.
Bangladeshis are more moderate religiously, and have less of an anti-Western culture in their homeland.
Having said that, it's quite common in schools with a lot of Bangladeshi kids for their parents to tell them they can't play with non-Bangladeshis. We still have a lot of integration issues there.
Many people were expecting Murdoch to come out with a Yes/No endorsement today - it looks like he's fence sitting an will wait till the Wednesday polls are out.
I am still vexed by the high price of Yes on Betfair.
I'm sure there will be a wobble on the night if you have positions to escape for.
Murdoch - is he feart he will back the wrong horse ?
Having said that, it's quite common in schools with a lot of Bangladeshi kids for their parents to tell them they can't play with non-Bangladeshis. We still have a lot of integration issues there.
Need strong schools which stamp down on that sort of thing.
Fair enough if you've never heard of him. He's a top aerodynamicist who formerly worked for Adrian Newey [who is designing next year's Red Bull but will take a step back after that].
Re the "Britain will soon be under sharia law" nonsense - it's nonsense.
Thankfully, Britain - or the FUK - is democratic. If immigration is allowed to continue at its present rate, and if nothing is done about Muslim ghettoisation, gang rape, etc, then the British people will elect a hard right party into office, who WILL do something about it. UKIP.
Cf the rise of the Swedish hard right, yesterday, where they have a very similar problem with Islam, and cf the rise of Marine Le Pen, of France, where ditto.
Therefore, it is very much in the interests of the Left to get to grips with immigration and Islam, else they will soon find themselves rendered politically impotent, as western Europe is dominated by hard right and far right parties. It's happening right now, before our eyes.
50 years ago if you had described recent events to an Englishman he would not have believed it possible. I hope you are right but I am not convinced
If you are confident then I strongly advise you to take the 3/1 about Ukip winning Rotherham... You have money to burn I hear ?! There a nice LADBROKES nr the book shop in Kentish town
Having said that, it's quite common in schools with a lot of Bangladeshi kids for their parents to tell them they can't play with non-Bangladeshis. We still have a lot of integration issues there.
Need strong schools which stamp down on that sort of thing.
Have you not realised how left-wing and PC the teaching establishment is? I have a teacher friend who requested her Bangladeshi teaching assistants speak English to each other (they often gossiped in Bengali). They really took offence and moved from speaking Bengali half the time to near 100% of the time, as well as other bullying issues. My friend complained to the head teacher about the issue and asked her to intervene. The head said she was being racist to ask them to speak English. She complained to her union (the NUT), who backed the head teacher.
In among all of this gnashing of teeth about the Sweden Democrats, in Germany the march of the populist right has continued, AfD won over 10% of the vote in two key local elections. They did it on a platform of local issues, anti EU, reduction in unskilled immigration, and most controversial, introduction of a referendum to build new mosques. The latter policy is one I think UKIP could use to great effect in the north.
Merkel's increasingly looking in trouble from the AfD. They're holding the rightwing balance of power in several states and she refuses to do a deal with them the numbers meaning her only realistic option is the SPD who not surpiringly demand their pound of flesh. How long her core voters put up with this will be interesting to watch.
The Chinese live in large numbers here and don't cause any problems, same goes for ultra conservative Jews, and both those communities are not great at integrating into UK society. The English could go in large numbers somewhere and it would be fine. Broadly saying that immigration is in itself a problem is itself lazy, the issue is always individuals and how individuals behave, the problem we have in this day and age is that people like you just go "oh it's all immigrations fault" and totally absolve people of any sense of personal responsibility (and you've aligned yourself with the loony left here in this respect.).
Where's the xenophobia? Could you point it out? The same problem would have existed if the same amount of English people went somewhere in the world and dominated large areas.
It's an argument on logic and human nature, and not based at all on xenophobia or an idea that British or English or white, whatever you want to say, is better or best
Open your mind and stop thinking lazily
The Chinese, Jews, Hindus, Seikhs and a multitude of Christian faiths live in large numbers here and by and large do not cause any problems.
It is obvious that in an era of mass,cheap, fast, travel immigration is here to stay like it or not. The problem is that a sizeable chunk of one particular culture do not intermarry, mix much or encourage association by their members with other cultures much, and have starkly different values and that process is deepining.
The time is now coming where our politicians are going to have to get their head out of the sand and take that particular painful nettle in their hands, with compulsory re-education and possibly even an internal dispersal process and, heaven forfend, social services removing children from extremist parents on a fairly large scale. Frankly measures which are illiberal and unpleasant to even countenance.
The alternative is far worse, that there will be inter communal violence soooner or later as Isam suggests, but he is wrong in the outcome, it would not result in Shia areas, that is absurd. My greatest fear is that it would result in a low level slow motion pogrom with said people ending up being treated like Catholics in NI in the 1950s or Jews in Europe in the 19th Century, with other people who have the same skin colour but not of that culture also finding themselves stigmatised and victimised.
Multiculturalism in the sense of respecting the core tenets of anothers culture, freely associating and intermarrying, is nothing more than good manners and natural human behaviour, however when a particular culture is unwilling to do this there is a serious societal problem. Having largely eliminated such a problem in the indigenous working class culture, we are now faced with the same problem in one of the immigrant cultures.
In among all of this gnashing of teeth about the Sweden Democrats, in Germany the march of the populist right has continued, AfD won over 10% of the vote in two key local elections. They did it on a platform of local issues, anti EU, reduction in unskilled immigration, and most controversial, introduction of a referendum to build new mosques. The latter policy is one I think UKIP could use to great effect in the north.
Merkel's increasingly looking in trouble from the AfD. They're holding the rightwing balance of power in several states and she refuses to do a deal with them the numbers meaning her only realistic option is the SPD who not surpiringly demand their pound of flesh. How long her core voters put up with this will be interesting to watch.
If the CDU were replaced by the AfD, it could actually make serious renegotiation in the EU viable.
Statistics from 2011 Census show more Muslim children than Christian growing up in Birmingham Of 278,623 youngsters, 97,099 were registered as Muslim compared with 93,828 as Christian A similar trend has emerged in the cities of Bradford and Leicester Experts said more must be done to ensure that society does not become polarised along religious lines
It's a very left wing attitude the right have to education, lots of wailing and moaning about how bad things are but no concrete action. Get in there and change things, the left have been pushed out of power in other areas where they were clowning around and getting things wrong, the right need to start walking the walk on this topic.
Have you not realised how left-wing and PC the teaching establishment is? I have a teacher friend who requested her Bangladeshi teaching assistants speak English to each other (they often gossiped in Bengali). They really took offence and moved from speaking Bengali half the time to near 100% of the time, as well as other bullying issues. My friend complained to the head teacher about the issue and asked her to intervene. The head said she was being racist to ask them to speak English. She complained to her union (the NUT), who backed the head teacher.
This is the key for UKIP to make progress in London. Virtually everyone has been burgled or knows someone who has been burgled, and I've been pleasantly surprised how many otherwise left-leaners are very tough on criminal justice.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
One of the few remedies was mixed marriage, a proposition that has become less attractive in the last 3 months or so I would think
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
For the casual punters/non-stats people out there - to work out if it's value or not, multiply the % chance that you think scots will vote yes by the probability that dave will stand down after a yes vote. If your answer is more than 8%, then PP's odds are value.
eg;
33% chance of a Yes x 40% chance of Dave standing down after a yes vote = 13% = Take the bet
or
22% x 20% = 4.4% = Don't bother.
Personally, I'd say Paddy have priced it about right.
It's a very left wing attitude the right have to education, lots of wailing and moaning about how bad things are but no concrete action. Get in there and change things, the left have been pushed out of power in other areas where they were clowning around and getting things wrong, the right need to start walking the walk on this topic.
Have you not realised how left-wing and PC the teaching establishment is? I have a teacher friend who requested her Bangladeshi teaching assistants speak English to each other (they often gossiped in Bengali). They really took offence and moved from speaking Bengali half the time to near 100% of the time, as well as other bullying issues. My friend complained to the head teacher about the issue and asked her to intervene. The head said she was being racist to ask them to speak English. She complained to her union (the NUT), who backed the head teacher.
The classic thing is on "approved absences". White parents aren't allowed to have an extra week after half term to take the kids to Spain, but Asian parents are often approved to have three month trips back to the subcontinent. There's been a tiny amount of scrutiny on the huge numbers doing the latter unapproved, but even the Tories are scared to say anything about approved holidays.
We often hear how Pakistani and Bangladeshi people are disadvantaged economically, yet the two main things causing this are (1) taking kids out of school for big chunks of the year and (2) women not working.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Is it better if we have replaced one with another? How so?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Is it better if we have replaced one with another? How so?
It is better that the problems in the six counties have been resolved.
Give it time, I'm sure the current major problem of terrorism will end here as well.
Many people were expecting Murdoch to come out with a Yes/No endorsement today - it looks like he's fence sitting an will wait till the Wednesday polls are out.
I am still vexed by the high price of Yes on Betfair.
Basically because the polls are consistently showing something like 52:48 in favour of No and punters don't like losing money. We've had one extreme margin of error poll the previous weekend and one complete outlier on Saturday based on a suspect sample. The best hope for Yes is that all the mature first time voters are yes and are not being picked up by current methodologies.
For the casual punters/non-stats people out there - to work out if it's value or not, multiply the % chance that you think scots will vote yes by the probability that dave will stand down after a yes vote. If your answer is more than 8%, then PP's odds are value.
eg;
33% chance of a Yes x 40% chance of Dave standing down after a yes vote = 13% = Take the bet
or
22% x 20% = 4.4% = Don't bother.
Personally, I'd say Paddy have priced it about right.
If you think yes is 33% chance surely you just pile into the 7/2 rather than mess about with doubles?
I imagine that it is UKIP policy that the police actually do their job and don't care about upsetting pakistani muslims.
I also imagine that this will be a massive vote winner.
Rather disturbing that what upsets them is the stopping of teenage girls being plied with drugs and then gang raped.
So UKIP's policy is to make sure that political correctness notwithstanding a few hundred Pakistani Muslims go to jail. OK, fine. So they will then be completely reconciled to the continuing presence of the other 2 million Pakistani Muslims in the country, will they?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
I have little hope it will get better in terms of violence, I think it will get catastrophically worse... But what can be done? If you flag up the be headings and bombs as proof that something's up, people shoot you down as racist. As you say, Nick Griffin, someone who I wouldn't vote for, did flag up the child abuse and was charged for racism. David Cameron is saying it's not really Muslims doing it etc, so I have little hope
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever any different
It seems to me that nobody has much idea what to do about this, whether UKIP/BNP/EDL or anyone else. So what is this party for? A platform of 'I told you this would happen but have no idea or proposal as to what to do about it, except to say "Enoch was right"' doesn't feel like an agenda for government.
To point the finger at one minority and insist that their collective transgressions are the most important issue we face, while maintaining a rather ominous silence as to what the answer might be, feels fundamentally unBritish.
Incidentally your fellow UKIPpers over at the DT are a lot less measured about this than you. Quite a few want Muslims killed or expelled.
In the UK, 21% of married Chinese-descent people have married outside their ethnic group. 4% of those of Pakistani-descent have, and 3% of those of Bangladeshi-descent.
Bangladeshis are more moderate religiously, and have less of an anti-Western culture in their homeland.
Having said that, it's quite common in schools with a lot of Bangladeshi kids for their parents to tell them they can't play with non-Bangladeshis. We still have a lot of integration issues there.
I came across this with one of my daughter's school friends who was never allowed to attend birthday parties, etc. They were from Cairo. It's very sad to have the hand of friendship refused.
I imagine that it is UKIP policy that the police actually do their job and don't care about upsetting pakistani muslims.
I also imagine that this will be a massive vote winner.
Rather disturbing that what upsets them is the stopping of teenage girls being plied with drugs and then gang raped.
So UKIP's policy is to make sure that political correctness notwithstanding a few hundred Pakistani Muslims go to jail. OK, fine. So they will then be completely reconciled to the continuing presence of the other 2 million Pakistani Muslims in the country, will they?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
I have little hope it will get better in terms of violence, I think it will get catastrophically worse... But what can be done? If you flag up the be headings and bombs as proof that something's up, people shoot you down as racist. As you say, Nick Griffin, someone who I wouldn't vote for, did flag up the child abuse and was charged for racism. David Cameron is saying it's not really Muslims doing it etc, so I have little hope
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever any different
It seems to me that nobody has much idea what to do about this, whether UKIP/BNP/EDL or anyone else. So what is this party for? A platform of 'I told you this would happen but have no idea or proposal as to what to do about it, except to say "Enoch was right"' doesn't feel like an agenda for government.
To point the finger at one minority and insist that their collective transgressions are most important issue we face, while having no answer to this issue, feels fundamentally unBritish.
I don't vote Ukip because of this issue, because I think it is a problem that cannot be solved. We just have to make the best if the mess we are in
So the question is, how do we best get a eurosceptic, immigration-reducing government after that?
Genuine question: define "immigration-reducing".
Currently we have net inward migration of, what, 300-500K per year - that is, over three hundred thousand more people come in than leave each year. UK population is currently ~65million and by ~2035 is predicted to hit ~75million (all figures approximate)
When you say "immigration-reducing", do you mean:
* OPTION A: You still have more people coming in than leaving and the population continues to increase, but the net numbers are reduced from ~300K to ~100K. This was the Conservative position in 2010 if I remember correctly * OPTION B: You have less people coming in than leaving, and the population starts to decrease. This is the current UKIP position if I undestand correctly
The reason why I ask is because I think there is a strand of thought in UK politics that wants to turn the UK into Singapore: ditch the Celtic fringe, increase migration, destroy worker's rights, go for growth a l'outrance. I suspect this strand may seek a mandate by using phrases such as "controlled migration", which is way too vague. If I know what you mean by "immigration-reducing", I can assess whether this strand meets your requirements or is selling you a pup.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (-2), Con 34 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 13 (=), Oth 8 (+1).
UK minus Scotland: Lab 35.3 Con 36.6 LD 8.5 UKIP 14.8
Still no E+W seat calculator !!
It will prob show Ukip 0
Ukip 1/10 to win clacton...
It's politicalbetting...
But let's go with Ukip 0
Not certain there is a Populus Monday/Friday effect, I think it was one of those where random variation lead us to a perception of a pattern that was in fact not there.
"Not a Scottish/English distinction (whether by birth, residence or state of mind) but a class one primarily - there are quite a few Tories (sensu lato) in Scotland. The voting system of the Scottish Pmt makes this far clearer than Westminster's FPTP."
My impression is that a "TORY" from a Scottish perspective isn't someone on the right or someone who votes Conservative or who even someone who is a member of the Party. It's a description of an altogether darker creature particularly if it has 'ENGLISH' in front of it
Possibly if you have been reading H. P. Lovecroft or talking to SLAB pre-BT (or both at the same time). In my neck of the woods one has to be a bit more sensible than that.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that the Tories (UK) do prefer FPTP, and those that live by the sword die by the sword and all that, so they have, willynilly, pretty much transformed themselves into an English party anyway - give or take a few Welsh seats - by their reluctance to appeal to the Scottish electorate.
And they themselves started claiming that for a Scot to criticise the Tories was a priori to be an anti-English racist - I think about a year back. Though they soon thought better of that.
I remain of my opinion that (at least on the Yes and Scottish side) class and political policy, and self-determination, are far more important considerations than mere Scottish/English distinction, hard as it is to disentangle the latter as the above example shows.
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
So it would be a complete unionist turnip jessie who plays with dolls who referred to the BBC as the EBC then?
Not you......?
I am very happy to say the BBC is the establishment and is very London biased if not downright liars and poltroons.
Yet James Cook of the BBC is running a one man PPB for Eck on the news 24/7...
James is actually one of the few decent reporters they have left. They got rid of most of the good ones as they did not agree with the Labour Party Supporting Management .
Well no one likes losing money, but you also gamble to make money, and the profit you can make on Betfair if the polls prove to be 2.1% out is quite outstanding.
Basically because the polls are consistently showing something like 52:48 in favour of No and punters don't like losing money. We've had one extreme margin of error poll the previous weekend and one complete outlier on Saturday based on a suspect sample. The best hope for Yes is that all the mature first time voters are yes and are not being picked up by current methodologies.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Is it better if we have replaced one with another? How so?
No one is saying it is - but your pretension seemed to suggest that Brit terrorising Brit was somehow a new phenomenon.
I imagine that it is UKIP policy that the police actually do their job and don't care about upsetting pakistani muslims.
I also imagine that this will be a massive vote winner.
Rather disturbing that what upsets them is the stopping of teenage girls being plied with drugs and then gang raped.
So UKIP's policy is to make sure that political correctness notwithstanding a few hundred Pakistani Muslims go to jail. OK, fine. So they will then be completely reconciled to the continuing presence of the other 2 million Pakistani Muslims in the country, will they?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
I have little hope it will get better in terms of violence, I think it will get catastrophically worse... But what can be done? If you flag up the be headings and bombs as proof that something's up, people shoot you down as racist. As you say, Nick Griffin, someone who I wouldn't vote for, did flag up the child abuse and was charged for racism. David Cameron is saying it's not really Muslims doing it etc, so I have little hope
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever any different
It seems to me that nobody has much idea what to do about this, whether UKIP/BNP/EDL or anyone else. So what is this party for? A platform of 'I told you this would happen but have no idea or proposal as to what to do about it, except to say "Enoch was right"' doesn't feel like an agenda for government.
To point the finger at one minority and insist that their collective transgressions are the most important issue we face, while maintaining a rather ominous silence as to what the answer might be, feels fundamentally unBritish.
Incidentally your fellow UKIPpers over at the DT are a lot less measured about this than you. Quite a few want Muslims killed or expelled.
One Kipper on here told me as a Mulim, I had to choose which side I was on.
About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?
The sham of the so called Better Together campaign is further revealed today with the multi-millionaire -excaptain of effin England football team coming out for No-counter-productive just does not do this incompetence justice. And the leader of the English effin Tories decides the pay his humble servants a personal visit-an effin masterstroke!!!
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Many people were expecting Murdoch to come out with a Yes/No endorsement today - it looks like he's fence sitting an will wait till the Wednesday polls are out.
I am still vexed by the high price of Yes on Betfair.
Basically because the polls are consistently showing something like 52:48 in favour of No and punters don't like losing money. We've had one extreme margin of error poll the previous weekend and one complete outlier on Saturday based on a suspect sample. The best hope for Yes is that all the mature first time voters are yes and are not being picked up by current methodologies.
If the polls are showing 52:48 in favour of No then the odds on Yes are way, way too short. At 51:49 the odds are a smidge too long (currently 4.6, should be 4). If it's "too close to call" then the odds are crazy.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'? He seems firmly in the grip of the PC mindset that enabled Rotherham to me.
"Not a Scottish/English distinction (whether by birth, residence or state of mind) but a class one primarily - there are quite a few Tories (sensu lato) in Scotland. The voting system of the Scottish Pmt makes this far clearer than Westminster's FPTP."
My impression is that a "TORY" from a Scottish perspective isn't someone on the right or someone who votes Conservative or who even someone who is a member of the Party. It's a description of an altogether darker creature particularly if it has 'ENGLISH' in front of it
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
So it would be a complete unionist turnip jessie who plays with dolls who referred to the BBC as the EBC then?
Not you......?
I am very happy to say the BBC is the establishment and is very London biased if not downright liars and poltroons.
Yet James Cook of the BBC is running a one man PPB for Eck on the news 24/7...
James is actually one of the few decent reporters they have left. They got rid of most of the good ones as they did not agree with the Labour Party Supporting Management .
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Is it better if we have replaced one with another? How so?
No one is saying it is - but your pretension seemed to suggest that Brit terrorising Brit was somehow a new phenomenon.
I clearly said 'in the name of Allah', which is a new phenomenon
So the question is, how do we best get a eurosceptic, immigration-reducing government after that?
Genuine question: define "immigration-reducing".
Currently we have net inward migration of, what, 300-500K per year - that is, over three hundred thousand more people come in than leave each year. UK population is currently ~65million and by ~2035 is predicted to hit ~75million (all figures approximate)
When you say "immigration-reducing", do you mean:
* OPTION A: You still have more people coming in than leaving and the population continues to increase, but the net numbers are reduced from ~300K to ~100K. This was the Conservative position in 2010 if I remember correctly * OPTION B: You have less people coming in than leaving, and the population starts to decrease. This is the current UKIP position if I undestand correctly
The reason why I ask is because I think there is a strand of thought in UK politics that wants to turn the UK into Singapore: ditch the Celtic fringe, increase migration, destroy worker's rights, go for growth a l'outrance. I suspect this strand may seek a mandate by using phrases such as "controlled migration", which is way too vague. If I know what you mean by "immigration-reducing", I can assess whether this strand meets your requirements or is selling you a pup.
Option A is <100K rather than ~100k. Combined with making immigration a lot more high-skilled, this is my position in addition to the UKIP one. The difference between UKIP and the Tories is that UKIP would actually walk the walk on it, while the Tories, after saying they would reduce it by 200k, have only reduced it by 10k.
If we had immigration of around 80k a year, and 90% of that is degree-educated or above, we would be in a much, much better position.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Well that's what the IRA said, said they were standing up for the persecuted Catholics.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
One of the few remedies was mixed marriage, a proposition that has become less attractive in the last 3 months or so I would think
The high number of mixed marriages in the UK may suggest that some of the divisions which you fear are not there.
I imagine that it is UKIP policy that the police actually do their job and don't care about upsetting pakistani muslims.
I also imagine that this will be a massive vote winner.
Rather disturbing that what upsets them is the stopping of teenage girls being plied with drugs and then gang raped.
So UKIP's policy is to make sure that political correctness notwithstanding a few hundred Pakistani Muslims go to jail. OK, fine. So they will then be completely reconciled to the continuing presence of the other 2 million Pakistani Muslims in the country, will they?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
I have little hope it will get better in terms of violence, I think it will get catastrophically worse... But what can be done? If you flag up the be headings and bombs as proof that something's up, people shoot you down as racist. As you say, Nick Griffin, someone who I wouldn't vote for, did flag up the child abuse and was charged for racism. David Cameron is saying it's not really Muslims doing it etc, so I have little hope
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever any different
One Kipper on here told me as a Mulim, I had to choose which side I was on.
Which was very sinister.
I did not see that said, but, as a UKIP supporter, I just wanted to say that sort of remark is unacceptable and should have no place in the party.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?
Probably dastardly unionist infiltrators,
Ah, the familiar sound of the 'Yes' battle cry - "It wasnae me!"
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
One of the few remedies was mixed marriage, a proposition that has become less attractive in the last 3 months or so I would think
The high number of mixed marriages in the UK may suggest that some of the divisions which you fear are not there.
Mixed marriage rates among Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in the UK are less than 10%. (It was less than 5% a decade ago, but it's probably around 6-7% now.) And I imagine that a big chunk of those marriages are to Muslims in other ethnic groups.
"You're an English person, coming here, invading" - spoken by a YES campaigner, to a Scotsman.
See also tweets like this:
@shona_angus · Sep 13 YeSSnp are now death threatening Jim Murphy & swearing big time at me for pointing it out. Argh DEMOCRACY help us
@talatyaqoob · 19h Sad end to rally; just had to console a woman who was crying after she was told she "scum for voting no and to go back to her own country
@YoungScotsUnion Sep 13 This was my experience campaigning in Dunfermline today. Too long to tweet. #NoThanks pic.twitter.com/eKjOEsV7Ad
There is a nasty edge to the Nat campaign, a faint whiff of Fascist and thuggish nationalism. malcolmg is on the streets.
I might add that you, personally, are one of the sanest and most courteous commentators on pb, and also one of the smarter posters, so I am surprised you are denying the obvious aggression which is now tainting the YES campaign.
I must say find it difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the expression YesSNP - it's like 'secessionist', loaded (and in the former case ignorant - Patrick Harvie would be outraged, for one). But as it happens I had wondered this morning about drawing attention to a tweet I had just read, showing the face of a teenage girl hit in the face and given what looks like a black eye by a No campaigner (male adult) for refusing a leaflet, but decided not to as it was, well, no more or less anecdotal or reliable or confirmed, than, indeed, the above.
After being assured the other day of the existence of that block of flats with all the windows smashed, and showing that it was, as far as any of us could tell, a lot of nonsense about a car fire, and the fuss made of a single egg, I am now completely sceptical of anything not properly documented and reported in the media. Which can only give us generalities and absurdities on which Mr Darling and the Better Tegither organisation have already been told off by the police for whipping up hysteria - and not just the polis but their union as well (which cannot be accused of being a government poodle). And some of them are gagging for anti-Yes fodder.
On a related issue, I notice that comments here about the BBC demo being unstewarded rather conflict with those decrying organised marches:
Organised march = fascism. Disorganised crowd = mob.
Are they never to be allowed to gather on the streets, then?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Well that's what the IRA said, said they were standing up for the persecuted Catholics.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Well that's what the IRA said, said they were standing up for the persecuted Catholics.
On the other hand they didn't half butcher a lot of them.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?
Probably dastardly unionist infiltrators,
One of them declared he would be opening a Palestinian embassy in Edinburgh on the 19th. I'm guessing that's not SNP policy?
About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
To be fair to Malky, the Wallace chant was so unusual that I was sceptical too and I'd have said just the same as him if I hadn't known about it.
I must admit it's very hard to judge the issue, but Mr Darling and the No Campaign have played it so far above reasonable that they're the ones who are largely driving it at the moment - as I said in my other posting, the polis - and their union - have had to have words with them.
Again I ask: where are the documented reports in the media?
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Well that's what the IRA said, said they were standing up for the persecuted Catholics.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
My point was, people misuse religion to kill and murder, the IRA did, Al Qaeda/ISIS do so.
@carnyx what's wrong/loaded/whatever with the word secessionist? I'd call myself one wrt the EU
Fair enough!
To me, I've always understood to do with the War between the States of the 1860s. Secession there meant departure from a unitary state - whereas the UK example is a composite state with a nation state choosing to resume its prior independence. And you have overtomes of slavers etc.
But is the EU a state in the sense of the USA in 1861? No need to answer that!
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'? He seems firmly in the grip of the PC mindset that enabled Rotherham to me.
Why can't he trust people to be grown up? It is obvious from the lack of violence over the last few weeks in South Yorkshire that people aren't vigilantes, no need to pretend things that are so, are not. That's the way to stir up trouble IMO
Many people were expecting Murdoch to come out with a Yes/No endorsement today - it looks like he's fence sitting an will wait till the Wednesday polls are out.
I am still vexed by the high price of Yes on Betfair.
Basically because the polls are consistently showing something like 52:48 in favour of No and punters don't like losing money. We've had one extreme margin of error poll the previous weekend and one complete outlier on Saturday based on a suspect sample. The best hope for Yes is that all the mature first time voters are yes and are not being picked up by current methodologies.
If the polls are showing 52:48 in favour of No then the odds on Yes are way, way too short. At 51:49 the odds are a smidge too long (currently 4.6, should be 4). If it's "too close to call" then the odds are crazy.
I suspect the position over the weekend was something like 51-49 NO e.g. that from using a poll-of-polls. The issue is, however, that the public's view has clearly moved over the past few weeks and may well move in the final few days. I am particularly worried about some of the polling evidence showing undecided's breaking for YES. In this context, the odds of a YES look much much too low. I think the market things the Scot's will 'come-to-their-senses' so-to-speak. But I am not so sure; the Nationalist's have created their own reality...
Many people were expecting Murdoch to come out with a Yes/No endorsement today - it looks like he's fence sitting an will wait till the Wednesday polls are out.
I am still vexed by the high price of Yes on Betfair.
Basically because the polls are consistently showing something like 52:48 in favour of No and punters don't like losing money. We've had one extreme margin of error poll the previous weekend and one complete outlier on Saturday based on a suspect sample. The best hope for Yes is that all the mature first time voters are yes and are not being picked up by current methodologies.
If the polls are showing 52:48 in favour of No then the odds on Yes are way, way too short. At 51:49 the odds are a smidge too long (currently 4.6, should be 4). If it's "too close to call" then the odds are crazy.
I suspect the position over the weekend was something like 51-49 NO e.g. that from using a poll-of-polls. The issue is, however, that the public's view has clearly moved over the past few weeks and may well move in the final few days. I am particularly worried about some of the polling evidence showing undecided's breaking for YES. In this context, the odds of a YES look much much too low. I think the market things the Scot's will 'come-to-their-senses' so-to-speak. But I am not so sure; the Nationalist's have created their own reality...
correction... the odds of a YES look much much too high.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
To be fair to Malky, the Wallace chant was so unusual that I was sceptical too and I'd have said just the same as him if I hadn't known about it.
I must admit it's very hard to judge the issue, but Mr Darling and the No Campaign have played it so far above reasonable that they're the ones who are largely driving it at the moment - as I said in my other posting, the polis - and their union - have had to have words with them.
Again I ask: where are the documented reports in the media?
I don't think I've referred to incidents of violence anywhere, by either side. In our discussion you're the one who has brought up alleged unionist attacks on Yes supporters. I've only mentioned the potential for it in the event of a close No. You clearly think it's impossible (as likely as lots of Nessies I think you said), but the article you reproduced talked of a not too distant memory of "tartan monsters".
The fact you were surprised by the chanting yesterday tells me that you're in denial about the feelings of a fair proportion of your fellow Yes supporters. If this isn't wilful denial then you may be in for an unpleasant surprise in the event of a close No.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
Mr. Smith, you think that PIRA members were good Catholics or their enemies were good observant members of their sects? I mean, really?
For me it's a matter of Common Sense v Common Purpose
But you're someone who once showed his true colours by initially saying the EDL were the voice of reason.
I'm glad the Tory party doesn't appeal to you.
I apologised for that terminology, it says more about you than me that you keep referring to it.
However I will say the EDL, Nick Griffin and others have been proven at least partially correct.
Loathsome as he is has Nick Griffin ever been offered an apology for being arrested and charged for exposing the truth?
The Tory party does not appeal to me at all, there are a few decent MP's but most are there for what they can get out of it. Much as I despise Labour they have a lot of backbenchers that have at least had a proper job, union stewards etc.
My point was, people misuse religion to kill and murder, the IRA did, Al Qaeda/ISIS do so.
That is not true. The IRA murdered people because they wanted the north of the country to be part of the Irish free state, and not part of Britain.
There was never any suggestion that the protestant community of Northern Ireland would not have been able to live peacefully with the free state if Ulster had changed its nationality.
Just on Islam/Muslims: it seems odd Cameron and others say 'they're not real Muslims' but quite happily call the ISIS lunatic area the Islamic State. We should come up with a different name for it.
The Yes campaign has indulged in the language of revenge fantasy, Wishart spoke of "consequences" for enfeebled Marr, Salmond says his opponents will " rue the day" and meet their " comeuppance", Sillars promises a "day of reckoning". God help us.
I thought I'd escaped from the indyref on holiday in Portugal but even their telly showed it.
I detect a hint of boredom from the English since I've returned and a little annoyance too. Share a currency - no chance - and woe betide any political party who suggest it.
It may not make economic sense but neither does the urge to separate - it's an emotional thing and always has been.
So the question is, how do we best get a eurosceptic, immigration-reducing government after that?
Genuine question: define "immigration-reducing".
Currently we have net inward migration of, what, 300-500K per year - that is, over three hundred thousand more people come in than leave each year. UK population is currently ~65million and by ~2035 is predicted to hit ~75million (all figures approximate)
When you say "immigration-reducing", do you mean:
* OPTION A: You still have more people coming in than leaving and the population continues to increase, but the net numbers are reduced from ~300K to ~100K. This was the Conservative position in 2010 if I remember correctly * OPTION B: You have less people coming in than leaving, and the population starts to decrease. This is the current UKIP position if I undestand correctly
The reason why I ask is because I think there is a strand of thought in UK politics that wants to turn the UK into Singapore: ditch the Celtic fringe, increase migration, destroy worker's rights, go for growth a l'outrance. I suspect this strand may seek a mandate by using phrases such as "controlled migration", which is way too vague. If I know what you mean by "immigration-reducing", I can assess whether this strand meets your requirements or is selling you a pup.
Option A is <100K rather than ~100k. Combined with making immigration a lot more high-skilled, this is my position in addition to the UKIP one. The difference between UKIP and the Tories is that UKIP would actually walk the walk on it, while the Tories, after saying they would reduce it by 200k, have only reduced it by 10k.
If we had immigration of around 80k a year, and 90% of that is degree-educated or above, we would be in a much, much better position. </p>
So when you say "immigration-reducing", you mean[1] "net inward migration of around 80k per year" with an additional rider of "at least 90% degree-educated". That would give a UK population in 2035 of around 67-68 million.
I don't know if it will be achieved (or even attempted!) but it is quantitative and that's what I was asking. So thank you, that's very helpful
[1] Since exact targets are impossible to hit each year, I assume you'd be happy with a target of "net inward migration of between 50 and 100K per year, with an average of around 80K", (with the graduate rider you mentioned).
There was never any suggestion that the protestant community of Northern Ireland would not have been able to live peacefully with the free state if Ulster had changed its nationality.
Apart from all the unionist terrorist groups you mean? Extraordinary rewriting of history.
@carnyx what's wrong/loaded/whatever with the word secessionist? I'd call myself one wrt the EU
Fair enough!
To me, I've always understood to do with the War between the States of the 1860s. Secession there meant departure from a unitary state - whereas the UK example is a composite state with a nation state choosing to resume its prior independence. And you have overtomes of slavers etc.
But is the EU a state in the sense of the USA in 1861? No need to answer that!
This is the UK section of the wiki page on Secession
"United Kingdom Ireland is the only territory that has withdrawn from the United Kingdom proper. Ireland declared independence in 1916 and, as the Irish Free State, gained independence in 1922. Currently the United Kingdom has a number of secession movements:
In Northern Ireland, Irish Republicans and Nationalists in general, have long called for the secession of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom in order to join the Republic of Ireland. This is opposed by Unionists.
In Scotland the Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigns for Scottish independence and direct Scottish membership of the European Union. It has representation at all levels of Scottish politics and now forms the devolved Scottish Government. A number of nascent pro-independence parties have enjoyed only limited electoral success. The Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Enterprise Party are most widely publicised. However all independence movements/parties are opposed by Unionists. A referendum on the independence has been scheduled for September 2014, after being agreed by Alex Salmond and David Cameron In Wales, Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) stands for Welsh independence within the European Union. It is also represented at all levels of Welsh politics and is the third largest party in the National Assembly of Wales. In Cornwall, supporters of Mebyon Kernow call for the creation of a Cornish Assembly and separation from England, giving the county significant self-government, whilst remaining within the United Kingdom as a fifth home nation. In England the now-disbanded Free England Party (FEP) campaigned for English independence. Parts of Southern England like Devon, the Isle of Wight, Minster in Kent, and Wessex, have autonomy movements.[citation needed] Some of the more radical members of the British direct democracy movement in the Conservative Party (Daniel Hannan for example) – while not actually advocating secession – support the federalization of the UK into states along county boundaries (actually a proposal of 5 or 6 regions of England, 4 or 5 in Scotland and 3 in Wales). There are currently 9 government office regions in England and none in the other Home Nations."
My point was, people misuse religion to kill and murder, the IRA did, Al Qaeda/ISIS do so.
That is not true. The IRA murdered people because they wanted the north of the country to be part of the Irish free state, and not part of Britain.
There was never any suggestion that the protestant community of Northern Ireland would not have been able to live peacefully with the free state if Ulster had changed its nationality.
The threat of ISIS is of a whole other order.
You appear to have forgotten all those "Loyalist" fighter groups
You appear to have forgotten all those "Loyalist" fighter groups
The loyalists murdered prominent Sinn Fein and IRA personnel because they were fighting to detach ulster from Britain, not because the latter were catholics.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
I wasnt calling for "an entire religious group [to be] labelled". What Cameron said was counterproductive and silly and he should not have said it. He was obviously correct to say nothing alog the lines of labelling an entire religious group and therefore fanning the flames.
Yes, there is peace within majority Islamic countries - for adherents. Being in a Christian minority in most such countries means second class status, instituionalised discrimination or even in some such as our Saudi allies banning of worship. That is not peace as I understand it.
The loyalists murdered prominent Sinn Fein and IRA personnel because they were fighting to detach ulster from Britain, not because the latter were catholics.
Sometimes.
And sometimes they slaughtered innocent people watching a football match because they were Catholic.
There is a natural No vote in Scotland based on what people think will be good for them. The Yes campaign have outperformed based on a strong grass roots campaign plus Labour showing once again that many of its leaders were out of touch.
Since 10 days ago the BT campaign has finally got going and will probably do enough to win the election. One example is that the BT stickers are now Red for Labour. This works much better on the council estates. I will put one up. The first time ever I have put up a red political poster.
The number of Yes stickers has not really progressed over the last few days and it seems like they have reached an impasse. Standing on Buchannan street singing Flower of Scotland and picketing the BBC wont convert many people. There are some Yes campaigners who have some very good points on how the UK constitution needs to change but they have been drowned out by the SNP mob. The Yes campaign is no longer a broad church but Salmond's personal youth movement.
So when you say "immigration-reducing", you mean[1] "net inward migration of around 80k per year" with an additional rider of "at least 90% degree-educated". That would give a UK population in 2035 of around 67-68 million.
I don't know if it will be achieved (or even attempted!) but it is quantitative and that's what I was asking. So thank you, that's very helpful
[1] Since exact targets are impossible to hit each year, I assume you'd be happy with a target of "net inward migration of between 50 and 100K per year, with an average of around 80K", (with the graduate rider you mentioned).
Right. In terms of quantity, I'd like to get to 1990s levels, which were sensible.
In terms of skill level, I'm happy to have a conversation about how it's defined. If someone is a very high earner (£60k+) then that is enough to make up for not having a degree because they likely have other valuable skills. If they earn below that, then I think people should have a degree from something like the top 400 universities in the world.
I'd also probably put a requirement on that if you come from a country with a history of widespread extremism, you need to have an interview on your political views to make sure you don't have signs of fundamentalism or intolerance. I know this is controversial, but given where we are with hundreds of Britons in Syria, I think tough action is needed.
About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.
In among all of this gnashing of teeth about the Sweden Democrats, in Germany the march of the populist right has continued, AfD won over 10% of the vote in two key local elections. They did it on a platform of local issues, anti EU, reduction in unskilled immigration, and most controversial, introduction of a referendum to build new mosques. The latter policy is one I think UKIP could use to great effect in the north.
Merkel's increasingly looking in trouble from the AfD. They're holding the rightwing balance of power in several states and she refuses to do a deal with them the numbers meaning her only realistic option is the SPD who not surpiringly demand their pound of flesh. How long her core voters put up with this will be interesting to watch.
The CDU are going to run into the same problem as the Tories over here, they haven't had a serious challenge on their right flank before and they are completely unable to deal with it. Unsurprisingly CDU leadership has gone down the same route as Tory leadership and scorned people who want to vote for AfD or have legitimate concerns about the way the EU is heading, the Euro or immigration from the developing side of Europe/Asia. This is not working and AfD are making key gains across the country. The CDU need to come to terms with this, and open up a dialogue for 2017, AfD could do very, very well and a centre-right/right coalition could be on the cards, CDU supporters may not be able to stomach a grand coalition with the SPD when a right wing coalition is available. They escaped that outcome by 0.3% this time but next time it is on the cards, there is no way that AfD won't win 10-12% in the next federal election.
Worse still, AfD isn't going to be contained like the FDP were, if the CDU keep denying them they will continue to grow just as UKIP has done here. I could see AfD outpolling The Left, the Greens and the FDP in 2017.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'? He seems firmly in the grip of the PC mindset that enabled Rotherham to me.
He is just a waffler who utters whatever he hears is flavour of the day. I think he is just simply useless.
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?
Probably dastardly unionist infiltrators,
Ah, the familiar sound of the 'Yes' battle cry - "It wasnae me!"
You got out your cardboard box then, must have downed a good few super lagers last night
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.
“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”
Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.
Most of the ones involved would not know the inside of a church if they saw it, far from religious , just bigotry.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Comments
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Tower_Hamlets
Having said that, it's quite common in schools with a lot of Bangladeshi kids for their parents to tell them they can't play with non-Bangladeshis. We still have a lot of integration issues there.
Murdoch - is he feart he will back the wrong horse ?
What is 'hard right' about a points system for immigration?
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12479/9471341/former-red-bull-aerodynamic-chief-peter-prodromou-starts-work-back-at-mclaren
Fair enough if you've never heard of him. He's a top aerodynamicist who formerly worked for Adrian Newey [who is designing next year's Red Bull but will take a step back after that].
Good news for McLaren.
Scotland to vote YES and Cameron to NOT lead Conservatives into next general election 12/1
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/scottish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1905617
If you are confident then I strongly advise you to take the 3/1 about Ukip winning Rotherham... You have money to burn I hear ?! There a nice LADBROKES nr the book shop in Kentish town
Then again the 4/1 is ridiculously short
It is obvious that in an era of mass,cheap, fast, travel immigration is here to stay like it or not. The problem is that a sizeable chunk of one particular culture do not intermarry, mix much or encourage association by their members with other cultures much, and have starkly different values and that process is deepining.
The time is now coming where our politicians are going to have to get their head out of the sand and take that particular painful nettle in their hands, with compulsory re-education and possibly even an internal dispersal process and, heaven forfend, social services removing children from extremist parents on a fairly large scale. Frankly measures which are illiberal and unpleasant to even countenance.
The alternative is far worse, that there will be inter communal violence soooner or later as Isam suggests, but he is wrong in the outcome, it would not result in Shia areas, that is absurd. My greatest fear is that it would result in a low level slow motion pogrom with said people ending up being treated like Catholics in NI in the 1950s or Jews in Europe in the 19th Century, with other people who have the same skin colour but not of that culture also finding themselves stigmatised and victimised.
Multiculturalism in the sense of respecting the core tenets of anothers culture, freely associating and intermarrying, is nothing more than good manners and natural human behaviour, however when a particular culture is unwilling to do this there is a serious societal problem. Having largely eliminated such a problem in the indigenous working class culture, we are now faced with the same problem in one of the immigrant cultures.
Of 278,623 youngsters, 97,099 were registered as Muslim compared with 93,828 as Christian
A similar trend has emerged in the cities of Bradford and Leicester
Experts said more must be done to ensure that society does not become polarised along religious lines
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755654/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/14/us-germany-election-states-idUSKBN0H90NZ20140914
This is the key for UKIP to make progress in London. Virtually everyone has been burgled or knows someone who has been burgled, and I've been pleasantly surprised how many otherwise left-leaners are very tough on criminal justice.
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
One of the few remedies was mixed marriage, a proposition that has become less attractive in the last 3 months or so I would think
For the casual punters/non-stats people out there - to work out if it's value or not, multiply the % chance that you think scots will vote yes by the probability that dave will stand down after a yes vote. If your answer is more than 8%, then PP's odds are value.
eg;
33% chance of a Yes x 40% chance of Dave standing down after a yes vote = 13% = Take the bet
or
22% x 20% = 4.4% = Don't bother.
Personally, I'd say Paddy have priced it about right.
We often hear how Pakistani and Bangladeshi people are disadvantaged economically, yet the two main things causing this are (1) taking kids out of school for big chunks of the year and (2) women not working.
Give it time, I'm sure the current major problem of terrorism will end here as well.
To point the finger at one minority and insist that their collective transgressions are the most important issue we face, while maintaining a rather ominous silence as to what the answer might be, feels fundamentally unBritish.
Incidentally your fellow UKIPpers over at the DT are a lot less measured about this than you. Quite a few want Muslims killed or expelled.
Currently we have net inward migration of, what, 300-500K per year - that is, over three hundred thousand more people come in than leave each year. UK population is currently ~65million and by ~2035 is predicted to hit ~75million (all figures approximate)
When you say "immigration-reducing", do you mean:
* OPTION A: You still have more people coming in than leaving and the population continues to increase, but the net numbers are reduced from ~300K to ~100K. This was the Conservative position in 2010 if I remember correctly
* OPTION B: You have less people coming in than leaving, and the population starts to decrease. This is the current UKIP position if I undestand correctly
The reason why I ask is because I think there is a strand of thought in UK politics that wants to turn the UK into Singapore: ditch the Celtic fringe, increase migration, destroy worker's rights, go for growth a l'outrance. I suspect this strand may seek a mandate by using phrases such as "controlled migration", which is way too vague. If I know what you mean by "immigration-reducing", I can assess whether this strand meets your requirements or is selling you a pup.
Which was very sinister.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
And the leader of the English effin Tories decides the pay his humble servants a personal visit-an effin masterstroke!!!
To UKIP's credit, they have utterly refused to give hope to any of the darker ambitions that some of their supporters have.
If we had immigration of around 80k a year, and 90% of that is degree-educated or above, we would be in a much, much better position.
After being assured the other day of the existence of that block of flats with all the windows smashed, and showing that it was, as far as any of us could tell, a lot of nonsense about a car fire, and the fuss made of a single egg, I am now completely sceptical of anything not properly documented and reported in the media. Which can only give us generalities and absurdities on which Mr Darling and the Better Tegither organisation have already been told off by the police for whipping up hysteria - and not just the polis but their union as well (which cannot be accused of being a government poodle). And some of them are gagging for anti-Yes fodder.
On a related issue, I notice that comments here about the BBC demo being unstewarded rather conflict with those decrying organised marches:
Organised march = fascism.
Disorganised crowd = mob.
Are they never to be allowed to gather on the streets, then?
I must admit it's very hard to judge the issue, but Mr Darling and the No Campaign have played it so far above reasonable that they're the ones who are largely driving it at the moment - as I said in my other posting, the polis - and their union - have had to have words with them.
Again I ask: where are the documented reports in the media?
To me, I've always understood to do with the War between the States of the 1860s. Secession there meant departure from a unitary state - whereas the UK example is a composite state with a nation state choosing to resume its prior independence. And you have overtomes of slavers etc.
But is the EU a state in the sense of the USA in 1861? No need to answer that!
I think the market things the Scot's will 'come-to-their-senses' so-to-speak. But I am not so sure; the Nationalist's have created their own reality...
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.110033387
The fact you were surprised by the chanting yesterday tells me that you're in denial about the feelings of a fair proportion of your fellow Yes supporters. If this isn't wilful denial then you may be in for an unpleasant surprise in the event of a close No.
For me it's a matter of Common Sense v Common Purpose
But you're someone who once showed his true colours by initially saying the EDL were the voice of reason.
I'm glad the Tory party doesn't appeal to you.
I apologised for that terminology, it says more about you than me that you keep referring to it.
However I will say the EDL, Nick Griffin and others have been proven at least partially correct.
Loathsome as he is has Nick Griffin ever been offered an apology for being arrested and charged for exposing the truth?
The Tory party does not appeal to me at all, there are a few decent MP's but most are there for what they can get out of it. Much as I despise Labour they have a lot of backbenchers that have at least had a proper job, union stewards etc.
That is not true. The IRA murdered people because they wanted the north of the country to be part of the Irish free state, and not part of Britain.
There was never any suggestion that the protestant community of Northern Ireland would not have been able to live peacefully with the free state if Ulster had changed its nationality.
The threat of ISIS is of a whole other order.
it seems odd Cameron and others say 'they're not real Muslims' but quite happily call the ISIS lunatic area the Islamic State. We should come up with a different name for it.
I detect a hint of boredom from the English since I've returned and a little annoyance too. Share a currency - no chance - and woe betide any political party who suggest it.
It may not make economic sense but neither does the urge to separate - it's an emotional thing and always has been.
I don't know if it will be achieved (or even attempted!) but it is quantitative and that's what I was asking. So thank you, that's very helpful
[1] Since exact targets are impossible to hit each year, I assume you'd be happy with a target of "net inward migration of between 50 and 100K per year, with an average of around 80K", (with the graduate rider you mentioned).
"United Kingdom
Ireland is the only territory that has withdrawn from the United Kingdom proper. Ireland declared independence in 1916 and, as the Irish Free State, gained independence in 1922. Currently the United Kingdom has a number of secession movements:
In Northern Ireland, Irish Republicans and Nationalists in general, have long called for the secession of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom in order to join the Republic of Ireland. This is opposed by Unionists.
In Scotland the Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigns for Scottish independence and direct Scottish membership of the European Union. It has representation at all levels of Scottish politics and now forms the devolved Scottish Government. A number of nascent pro-independence parties have enjoyed only limited electoral success. The Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Enterprise Party are most widely publicised. However all independence movements/parties are opposed by Unionists. A referendum on the independence has been scheduled for September 2014, after being agreed by Alex Salmond and David Cameron
In Wales, Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) stands for Welsh independence within the European Union. It is also represented at all levels of Welsh politics and is the third largest party in the National Assembly of Wales.
In Cornwall, supporters of Mebyon Kernow call for the creation of a Cornish Assembly and separation from England, giving the county significant self-government, whilst remaining within the United Kingdom as a fifth home nation.
In England the now-disbanded Free England Party (FEP) campaigned for English independence.
Parts of Southern England like Devon, the Isle of Wight, Minster in Kent, and Wessex, have autonomy movements.[citation needed]
Some of the more radical members of the British direct democracy movement in the Conservative Party (Daniel Hannan for example) – while not actually advocating secession – support the federalization of the UK into states along county boundaries (actually a proposal of 5 or 6 regions of England, 4 or 5 in Scotland and 3 in Wales). There are currently 9 government office regions in England and none in the other Home Nations."
There is also a section on the EU
Tipping point for Ed?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
The loyalists murdered prominent Sinn Fein and IRA personnel because they were fighting to detach ulster from Britain, not because the latter were catholics.
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
Yes, there is peace within majority Islamic countries - for adherents. Being in a Christian minority in most such countries means second class status, instituionalised discrimination or even in some such as our Saudi allies banning of worship. That is not peace as I understand it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756134/Dozens-Christians-including-women-children-arrested-Saudi-Arabia-tip-state-s-Islamist-police-force.html
And sometimes they slaughtered innocent people watching a football match because they were Catholic.
Since 10 days ago the BT campaign has finally got going and will probably do enough to win the election. One example is that the BT stickers are now Red for Labour. This works much better on the council estates. I will put one up. The first time ever I have put up a red political poster.
The number of Yes stickers has not really progressed over the last few days and it seems like they have reached an impasse. Standing on Buchannan street singing Flower of Scotland and picketing the BBC wont convert many people. There are some Yes campaigners who have some very good points on how the UK constitution needs to change but they have been drowned out by the SNP mob. The Yes campaign is no longer a broad church but Salmond's personal youth movement.
In terms of skill level, I'm happy to have a conversation about how it's defined. If someone is a very high earner (£60k+) then that is enough to make up for not having a degree because they likely have other valuable skills. If they earn below that, then I think people should have a degree from something like the top 400 universities in the world.
I'd also probably put a requirement on that if you come from a country with a history of widespread extremism, you need to have an interview on your political views to make sure you don't have signs of fundamentalism or intolerance. I know this is controversial, but given where we are with hundreds of Britons in Syria, I think tough action is needed.
Worse still, AfD isn't going to be contained like the FDP were, if the CDU keep denying them they will continue to grow just as UKIP has done here. I could see AfD outpolling The Left, the Greens and the FDP in 2017.
Next #indyref poll by us out eve 17th. Two challenges - is one side over stating likelihood of voting and are there "shy" No voters.
“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”
Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..
This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.
In polling terms, it's like living in the dark ages.
Do people know when they're blinkered?