I too have backed Fiorina. I think she'd be a great candidate to run against Biden for example. She'll help anyway being in the running.
I suspect she may well be able to tackle Trump too, but that'd be monumentally unwise at this stage for her. If she thinks she can clobber Trump then let the others do the hard work and wait for the right time to administer the killer blow.
The slight difficulty is that her HP record is patchy. I rather think that it was a tricky task and she did quite well, but I know that's not a view shared by others. If she couldn't run HP then she certainly can't run the USA.
In theory, she would be a great candidate. In practice not at all. She has run for elected office once and got trounced during the great Wave Election that boosted the GOP to amazing results. She has been CEO of a world-famous corporation, but her record there will be the stuff of pretty nasty Dem attack ads.
Fiorina only looks strong on paper. Sure, she debates well against the undercard, but she has not proven she can campaign and she has little relevant experience, in election where one of the key electorate fatigues in the electorate that counts - the independents - is with a Presidency that had no executive experience. And, although Obama was a quick study on many issues, he never learnt how to operate the Hill - even the with the Dems, let alone the GOP.
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Fiorina was brutally sacked by the HP board. Trump is bound to utter " You're fired " in her direction during the debate.
Tbh, Fiorina looks like someone with more style than substance. The US hardly needs that.
She's restyled her hair from carrot orange to a Romneyesque black with grey/white sidelocks to look more Presidential.
They were some dignified grey streaks. I could vote for a haircut that presidential.
I think beards look Prime Ministerial
Not all beards - I suspect my goatee and neckbeard combo, the only beard I can grow, would not pass muster. Comrade Jeremy's is respectable enough though.
Just an experiment I run every now and then to see whether my facial hair offering remains as embarrassing as it was in my teens. Yes, as it happens.
So, hipster probably. I have started wearing a hat in the past year as well.
Fiorina was brutally sacked by the HP board. Trump is bound to utter " You're fired " in her direction during the debate.
Tbh, Fiorina looks like someone with more style than substance. The US hardly needs that.
She's restyled her hair from carrot orange to a Romneyesque black with grey/white sidelocks to look more Presidential.
They were some dignified grey streaks. I could vote for a haircut that presidential.
I think beards look Prime Ministerial
Not all beards - I suspect my goatee and neckbeard combo, the only beard I can grow, would not pass muster. Comrade Jeremy's is respectable enough though.
Dont think GO can pull off a beard but Sadiq could
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
OK, Southam, instead of carping. If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
There's no way that Westminster can settle the Scottish Question and remain electable by voters in England.
The only programme which would succeed would be : -
1. Fully Federal UK with individual Nations holding vetos on all joint policy decisions in a Senate which replaces the Lords.
2. An apology for the lies over oil since the 1970s and the pillaging of money to the South East.
3. A waiver to Scotland over any contribution for the current UK debt, an agreement that the Federal Budget should always be in balance and for each devolved Nation to issue its own debt through the BoE.
4. A subvention/reparation agreed to be paid to Scotland probably in the region of £5bn per annum currently, combined with a limit to Scotland's contribution to the Defense budget (about 1.2% of GDP would reasonably in line with neighbouring nations)
5. Scrapping Trident.
Anything less and it is certain the UK will be dissolved. Probably any one of those would make a Westminster party toxic with the English electorate who have lapped up the lies about Scotland for years.
You haven't noticed have you. Most of the posters on here and the voters in the UK would be happy for you to go and spare us your whinging and cockeyed economic postulating. Go!
I don't see why the UK would end if Scotland left. It was originally formed between a union of Great Britain and Ireland, yet it survived most of Ireland leaving. It can also survive a small chunk of Great Britain leaving. We can go on as the UK with a slight name change after the "of".
Given it is two kingdoms , hard for the one left to be united unless it is with itself.
Manchester, Leeds and Dundee are all united. Perfectly possible to be a United Kingdom after Scotland leaves. Indeed Scotland would cease to have any say in the matter at all...
Can you explain your logic. Given Scotland would be independent any idiot would know it would not be part of the rump. The point was how could it be UK when one of the two kingdoms had gone.
That's not the case. The two kingdoms which formed the UK were the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Part of one Kingdom left in the 1920s and we remained the UK. If part of the other Kingdom leaves then we will still remain the UK.
Indeed. We could be want we want to be it would be no one else's business.
Alternatively we could give Wales independence and tell NI to sort out its own problems, then we would just be England and probably much happier.
Mind, we would have to do something about those islands around the world that for whatever reason refuse to become independent. The Falklands would have to stay with the England and we ought to hang on to Gib. The Caribbean territories we could divide up - the Cayman's stay with England whilst Ireland, Scotland and wales can draw lots over the rest, though maybe Ireland ought to take the British Virgin Islands. I think there is a place or two in the pacific which still look to the UK (on one if memory serves they worship the Duke of Edinburgh as a god), if that is correct they should be given to Scotland. The islanders of St. Helena should be given a choice who to belong to. Any I have missed like Ascension, the Yanks can have, since they are probably there already.
All this faffing about with a federal structure, forget it. HMtQ will probably be a bit miffed, though.
We should just ditch Sussex.
Give it to France.
Don't the French own Dover or something under some archaic law
Must do - and 4 others. Why else would they be called 'cinque' ports ;-)
Fiorina was brutally sacked by the HP board. Trump is bound to utter " You're fired " in her direction during the debate.
Tbh, Fiorina looks like someone with more style than substance. The US hardly needs that.
Who cares what the US needs !
I thought a lot of PBers would care, given that those on the Right of British politics tend to be quite pro-USA.
The US is still the world's largest economy, and given the recent economic news from China that is not going to change in the short term. It is also the most powerful power in terms of foreign policy so of course who becomes President of the US affects us rather more than who becomes PM of Belgium whether you like it or not!
Beards are funny things - you either look a bit peacocky [nothing wrong with that - Dave Narvarro has a great one] or like you can't be bothered. Neck beards I find the least attractive, well after large bushy ones worn by Alky Adaz
Fiorina was brutally sacked by the HP board. Trump is bound to utter " You're fired " in her direction during the debate.
Tbh, Fiorina looks like someone with more style than substance. The US hardly needs that.
She's restyled her hair from carrot orange to a Romneyesque black with grey/white sidelocks to look more Presidential.
They were some dignified grey streaks. I could vote for a haircut that presidential.
I think beards look Prime Ministerial
Not all beards - I suspect my goatee and neckbeard combo, the only beard I can grow, would not pass muster. Comrade Jeremy's is respectable enough though.
Dont think GO can pull off a beard but Sadiq could
Re Financier's posting (FPT) of this gem by Alan Bennett -
"A true matriarch, a true battleaxe, is fearless. She deals only in moral absolutes, so that those around her flailing in a sea of moral relativism can cling on to her rock-like convictions when mental cramp eventually sets in. She cannot be forged in such tremulous times."
All I can say is that he should get out more. There are plenty of us around.
I don't see why the UK would end if Scotland left. It was originally formed between a union of Great Britain and Ireland, yet it survived most of Ireland leaving. It can also survive a small chunk of Great Britain leaving. We can go on as the UK with a slight name change after the "of".
Given it is two kingdoms , hard for the one left to be united unless it is with itself.
Manchester, Leeds and Dundee are all united. Perfectly possible to be a United Kingdom after Scotland leaves. Indeed Scotland would cease to have any say in the matter at all...
Can you explain your logic. Given Scotland would be independent any idiot would know it would not be part of the rump. The point was how could it be UK when one of the two kingdoms had gone.
That's not the case. The two kingdoms which formed the UK were the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Part of one Kingdom left in the 1920s and we remained the UK. If part of the other Kingdom leaves then we will still remain the UK.
Indeed. We could be want we want to be it would be no one else's business.
Alternatively we could give Wales independence and tell NI to sort out its own problems, then we would just be England and probably much happier.
Mind, we would have to do something about those islands around the world that for whatever reason refuse to become independent. The Falklands would have to stay with the England and we ought to hang on to Gib. The Caribbean territories we could divide up - the Cayman's stay with England whilst Ireland, Scotland and wales can draw lots over the rest, though maybe Ireland ought to take the British Virgin Islands. I think there is a place or two in the pacific which still look to the UK (on one if memory serves they worship the Duke of Edinburgh as a god), if that is correct they should be given to Scotland. The islanders of St. Helena should be given a choice who to belong to. Any I have missed like Ascension, the Yanks can have, since they are probably there already.
All this faffing about with a federal structure, forget it. HMtQ will probably be a bit miffed, though.
We should just ditch Sussex.
Give it to France.
Don't the French own Dover or something under some archaic law
That was in a yes Prime Minister episode shown today.
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
My understanding is she's said Germany should accept all Syrians but then wants the other 27 EU states to take a share. Now if I decide to take a loan out I don't then go round the neighbours and demand they chip in do I?
It might've been an idea for her to clear a European wide policy first before requesting others pick up the tab for her decision. There again the Greeks tried something similar on her....
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkelg.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
There's a limit to the responsibility, not lease because in this instance we are castigated for both interfering and not interfering. I have to admit, while I'm happy to accept more refuges (a debate on how many would need to be had), aid to those in nearby countries and the richer islamic states doing a lot more seems more effective a solution to the actual problem, with less cultural disruption for the refugees and the west, than just taking in an arbitrary number.
Fiorina was brutally sacked by the HP board. Trump is bound to utter " You're fired " in her direction during the debate.
Tbh, Fiorina looks like someone with more style than substance. The US hardly needs that.
She's restyled her hair from carrot orange to a Romneyesque black with grey/white sidelocks to look more Presidential.
They were some dignified grey streaks. I could vote for a haircut that presidential.
I think beards look Prime Ministerial
Not all beards - I suspect my goatee and neckbeard combo, the only beard I can grow, would not pass muster. Comrade Jeremy's is respectable enough though.
Just an experiment I run every now and then to see whether my facial hair offering remains as embarrassing as it was in my teens. Yes, as it happens.
So, hipster probably. I have started wearing a hat in the past year as well.
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Sorry, but if Syria proves anything it proves that the US and its allies don't need to invade a country for it to become destabilized and overrun with people like ISIS. There are no good choices in the Middle East. You only need to look at some of the confusing discussions on here about topics like Libya to see that our politicians don't have an easy job when it comes to this topic.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
OK, Southam, instead of carping. If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
There's no way that Westminster can settle the Scottish Question and remain electable by voters in England.
The only programme which would succeed would be : -
1. Fully Federal UK with individual Nations holding vetos on all joint policy decisions in a Senate which replaces the Lords.
2. An apology for the lies over oil since the 1970s and the pillaging of money to the South East.
3. A waiver to Scotland over any contribution for the current UK debt, an agreement that the Federal Budget should always be in balance and for each devolved Nation to issue its own debt through the BoE.
4. A subvention/reparation agreed to be paid to Scotland probably in the region of £5bn per annum currently, combined with a limit to Scotland's contribution to the Defense budget (about 1.2% of GDP would reasonably in line with neighbouring nations)
5. Scrapping Trident.
Anything less and it is certain the UK will be dissolved. Probably any one of those would make a Westminster party toxic with the English electorate who have lapped up the lies about Scotland for years.
Certainly one of your more stupid posts, and against some considerable competition too.
I find his fantasyland trash kinda compelling but difficult to read whilst shaking my head in disbelief. I suppose it's sad really.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
OK, Southam, instead of carping. If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
There's no way that Westminster can settle the Scottish Question and remain electable by voters in England.
The only programme which would succeed would be : -
1. Fully Federal UK with individual Nations holding vetos on all joint policy decisions in a Senate which replaces the Lords.
2. An apology for the lies over oil since the 1970s and the pillaging of money to the South East.
3. A waiver to Scotland over any contribution for the current UK debt, an agreement that the Federal Budget should always be in balance and for each devolved Nation to issue its own debt through the BoE.
4. A subvention/reparation agreed to be paid to Scotland probably in the region of £5bn per annum currently, combined with a limit to Scotland's contribution to the Defense budget (about 1.2% of GDP would reasonably in line with neighbouring nations)
5. Scrapping Trident.
Anything less and it is certain the UK will be dissolved. Probably any one of those would make a Westminster party toxic with the English electorate who have lapped up the lies about Scotland for years.
You haven't noticed have you. Most of the posters on here and the voters in the UK would be happy for you to go and spare us your whinging and cockeyed economic postulating. Go!
Two thumbs up. If Scotland truly wants independence, extend the franchise to England and it's a racing certainty.
My best friend makes most battleaxes look a bit feeble - I once had my management style described as a drive-by shooting. And this was by a good friend/colleague.
Re Financier's posting (FPT) of this gem by Alan Bennett -
"A true matriarch, a true battleaxe, is fearless. She deals only in moral absolutes, so that those around her flailing in a sea of moral relativism can cling on to her rock-like convictions when mental cramp eventually sets in. She cannot be forged in such tremulous times."
All I can say is that he should get out more. There are plenty of us around.
I too have backed Fiorina. I think she'd be a great candidate to run against Biden for example. She'll help anyway being in the running.
I suspect she may well be able to tackle Trump too, but that'd be monumentally unwise at this stage for her. If she thinks she can clobber Trump then let the others do the hard work and wait for the right time to administer the killer blow.
The slight difficulty is that her HP record is patchy. I rather think that it was a tricky task and she did quite well, but I know that's not a view shared by others. If she couldn't run HP then she certainly can't run the USA.
In theory, she would be a great candidate. In practice not at all. She has run for elected office once and got trounced during the great Wave Election that boosted the GOP to amazing results. She has been CEO of a world-famous corporation, but her record there will be the stuff of pretty nasty Dem attack ads.
Fiorina only looks strong on paper. Sure, she debates well against the undercard, but she has not proven she can campaign and she has little relevant experience, in election where one of the key electorate fatigues in the electorate that counts - the independents - is with a Presidency that had no executive experience. And, although Obama was a quick study on many issues, he never learnt how to operate the Hill - even the with the Dems, let alone the GOP.
I don't disagree with anything you say. She'll do well in the debates, and it's just astonishing that its so easy to shine there. I doubt there's a single PB poster that wouldn't shine, and shine brightly, over the likes of Trump. Somehow though the US people will boil it all down, and there will be two good candidates. Fiorina is not an incredible name for one of those slots.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
My understanding is she's said Germany should accept all Syrians but then wants the other 27 EU states to take a share. Now if I decide to take a loan out I don't then go round the neighbours and demand they chip in do I?
It might've been an idea for her to clear a European wide policy first before requesting others pick up the tab for her decision. There again the Greeks tried something similar on her....
I agree that she should have cleared the details of an EU-wide solution with other countries. On Greece, well that's a completely different scenario (partly caused by Greece themselves).
@kle4 Where Britain and the US have ended up being castigated for not intervening, partly because of an idea that we played a part in creating the mess, and therefore we should fix it. I agree that in the long-term, the solution lies with the Arab world though.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Those are very short generations you have up there. Something in the water, no doubt.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
OK, Southam, instead of carping. If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
There's no way that Westminster can settle the Scottish Question and remain electable by voters in England.
The only programme which would succeed would be : -
1. Fully Federal UK with individual Nations holding vetos on all joint policy decisions in a Senate which replaces the Lords.
2. An apology for the lies over oil since the 1970s and the pillaging of money to the South East.
3. A waiver to Scotland over any contribution for the current UK debt, an agreement that the Federal Budget should always be in balance and for each devolved Nation to issue its own debt through the BoE.
4. A subvention/reparation agreed to be paid to Scotland probably in the region of £5bn per annum currently, combined with a limit to Scotland's contribution to the Defense budget (about 1.2% of GDP would reasonably in line with neighbouring nations)
5. Scrapping Trident.
Anything less and it is certain the UK will be dissolved. Probably any one of those would make a Westminster party toxic with the English electorate who have lapped up the lies about Scotland for years.
Certainly one of your more stupid posts, and against some considerable competition too.
I find his fantasyland trash kinda compelling but difficult to read whilst shaking my head in disbelief. I suppose it's sad really.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
You think that betting a nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp is a backbone of World Trade?
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Sorry, but if Syria proves anything it proves that the US and its allies don't need to invade a country for it to become destabilized and overrun with people like ISIS. There are no good choices in the Middle East. You only need to look at some of the confusing discussions on here about topics like Libya to see that our politicians don't have an easy job when it comes to this topic.
ISIS originated in Iraq, which Britain and the US invaded.
Ken Livingstone is coming out with one incorrect and economically illiterate claim after another on BBC News:
- We printed money to bailout the banks, so we can do it to fund infrastructure (except we actually printed money to stop deflation, and now we have inflation) - There's been no investment in the railways since privatisation (when it actually increased) - Full employment is when we have 2% unemployment (when its actually 5% unemployment)
Of course, Charles Clarke isn't bright enough to correct him.
Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.
The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.
But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkelg.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
There's a limit to the responsibility, not lease because in this instance we are castigated for both interfering and not interfering. I have to admit, while I'm happy to accept more refuges (a debate on how many would need to be had), aid to those in nearby countries and the richer islamic states doing a lot more seems more effective a solution to the actual problem, with less cultural disruption for the refugees and the west, than just taking in an arbitrary number.
Fiorina was brutally sacked by the HP board. Trump is bound to utter " You're fired " in her direction during the debate.
Tbh, Fiorina looks like someone with more style than substance. The US hardly needs that.
She's restyled her hair from carrot orange to a Romneyesque black with grey/white sidelocks to look more Presidential.
They were some dignified grey streaks. I could vote for a haircut that presidential.
I think beards look Prime Ministerial
Not all beards - I suspect my goatee and neckbeard combo, the only beard I can grow, would not pass muster. Comrade Jeremy's is respectable enough though.
Just an experiment I run every now and then to see whether my facial hair offering remains as embarrassing as it was in my teens. Yes, as it happens.
So, hipster probably. I have started wearing a hat in the past year as well.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Dont be ridiculous by the time Sturgeon has run a 7 year campaign it will already be 2022
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Those are very short generations you have up there. Something in the water, no doubt.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Those are very short generations you have up there. Something in the water, no doubt.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.
The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.
But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.
Does he advocate rebuilding the Antonine wall?
Very good. - My Aelle of Sussex joke fell flat on the last thread :-(
I don't see why the UK would end if Scotland left. It was originally formed between a union of Great Britain and Ireland, yet it survived most of Ireland leaving. It can also survive a small chunk of Great Britain leaving. We can go on as the UK with a slight name change after the "of".
Given it is two kingdoms , hard for the one left to be united unless it is with itself.
That's not the case. The two kingdoms which formed the UK were the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Part of one Kingdom left in the 1920s and we remained the UK. If part of the other Kingdom leaves then we will still remain the UK.
Indeed. We could be want we want to be it would be no one else's business.
Alternatively we could give Wales independence and tell NI to sort out its own problems, then we would just be England and probably much happier.
Mind, we would have to do something about those islands around the world that for whatever reason refuse to become independent. The Falklands would have to stay with the England and we ought to hang on to Gib. The Caribbean territories we could divide up - the Cayman's stay with England whilst Ireland, Scotland and wales can draw lots over the rest, though maybe Ireland ought to take the British Virgin Islands. I think there is a place or two in the pacific which still look to the UK (on one if memory serves they worship the Duke of Edinburgh as a god), if that is correct they should be given to Scotland. The islanders of St. Helena should be given a choice who to belong to. Any I have missed like Ascension, the Yanks can have, since they are probably there already.
All this faffing about with a federal structure, forget it. HMtQ will probably be a bit miffed, though.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
Shhh... what the Scots don't realise is that on Independence Day they will suddenly realise that, due to momentary inattention during negotiations, they got to keep Northern Ireland
It would certainly provide a wider, integrated focus for protestant/ catholic rivalries.
Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.
The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.
But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.
Does he advocate rebuilding the Antonine wall?
Very good. - My Aelle of Sussex joke fell flat on the last thread :-(
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
You think that betting a nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp is a backbone of World Trade?
Bizarre.
You seem unable to appreciate that 21st century Panama and 18th century Panama are very different places.
I don't see why the UK would end if Scotland left. It was originally formed between a union of Great Britain and Ireland, yet it survived most of Ireland leaving. It can also survive a small chunk of Great Britain leaving. We can go on as the UK with a slight name change after the "of".
Given it is two kingdoms , hard for the one left to be united unless it is with itself.
That's not the case. The two kingdoms which formed the UK were the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Part of one Kingdom left in the 1920s and we remained the UK. If part of the other Kingdom leaves then we will still remain the UK.
Indeed. We could be want we want to be it would be no one else's business.
Alternatively we could give Wales independence and tell NI to sort out its own problems, then we would just be England and probably much happier.
Mind, we would have to do something about those islands around the world that for whatever reason refuse to become independent. The Falklands would have to stay with the England and we ought to hang on to Gib. The Caribbean territories we could divide up - the Cayman's stay with England whilst Ireland, Scotland and wales can draw lots over the rest, though maybe Ireland ought to take the British Virgin Islands. I think there is a place or two in the pacific which still look to the UK (on one if memory serves they worship the Duke of Edinburgh as a god), if that is correct they should be given to Scotland. The islanders of St. Helena should be given a choice who to belong to. Any I have missed like Ascension, the Yanks can have, since they are probably there already.
All this faffing about with a federal structure, forget it. HMtQ will probably be a bit miffed, though.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
Shhh... what the Scots don't realise is that on Independence Day they will suddenly realise that, due to momentary inattention during negotiations, they got to keep Northern Ireland
It would certainly provide a wider, more integrated focus for protestant/ catholic rivalries
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
You think that betting a nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp is a backbone of World Trade?
Bizarre.
You seem unable to appreciate that 21st century Panama and 18th century Panama are very different places.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Like some of your compatriots who post on this site you seem to labour under the delusion that the English care whether you go or stay. A very large proportion of us, I would go so far as to say the majority, couldn't give a big rat's arse and actually would be quietly pleased if you did vote for independence.
So the idea that we have anytime period in order to do something is actually a figment of your imagination.
Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.
The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.
But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.
Does he advocate rebuilding the Antonine wall?
Very good. - My Aelle of Sussex joke fell flat on the last thread :-(
Well at least someone appreciates 7th century pagan Sussex! Anyway Normans were Vikings with warmer weather and better cheese.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
You think that betting a nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp is a backbone of World Trade?
Bizarre.
Substantial (and irrational or not) flows of money are completely the backbone of world trade. Money changing hands increases the likelihood that any particular opportunity might be 'found'. Whatever you think of financial markets there's no doubt that they do quite effectively explore financial opportunity.
People with their underpants around their ankles are the backbone of the world's trade.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Like some of your compatriots who post on this site you seem to labour under the delusion that the English care whether you go or stay. A very large proportion of us, I would go so far as to say the majority, couldn't give a big rat's arse and actually would be quietly pleased if you did vote for independence.
So the idea that we have anytime period in order to do something is actually a figment of your imagination.
It's funny how delusional they are. They seem to think we will miss them.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Like some of your compatriots who post on this site you seem to labour under the delusion that the English care whether you go or stay. A very large proportion of us, I would go so far as to say the majority, couldn't give a big rat's arse and actually would be quietly pleased if you did vote for independence.
So the idea that we have anytime period in order to do something is actually a figment of your imagination.
It's funny how delusional they are. They seem to think we will miss them.
Some of us will, to be fair. I regret we do appear to be a minority.
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Sorry, but if Syria proves anything it proves that the US and its allies don't need to invade a country for it to become destabilized and overrun with people like ISIS. There are no good choices in the Middle East. You only need to look at some of the confusing discussions on here about topics like Libya to see that our politicians don't have an easy job when it comes to this topic.
ISIS originated in Iraq, which Britain and the US invaded.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Mos a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Like some of your compatriots who post on this site you seem to labour under the delusion that the English care whether you go or stay. A very large proportion of us, I would go so far as to say the majority, couldn't give a big rat's arse and actually would be quietly pleased if you did vote for independence.
So the idea that we have anytime period in order to do something is actually a figment of your imagination.
hmmm
I've just finished watching Horizon. Lots of clever chappies with big comnputers were talking about multiverses and coming out with ever more outlandish theories, the kind of stuff scientists would laugh at if you said it as a non-scientist. Currently we may all be in a Matrix or not. I can't help thinking at some point physics text books are going to end up starting " In the beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth..."
Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.
The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.
But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.
Does he advocate rebuilding the Antonine wall?
Very good. - My Aelle of Sussex joke fell flat on the last thread :-(
No it didn't Mr. Howl, I laughed. However, you must admit it was an obscure reference. I doubt many people knew who Aelle was.
Re Pevensy Castle it was, of course originally by the Romans as can be seen fro the lower tiers of the brickwork, The Normans only added to what was already there, as in so much of England.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Fiorina was brutally sacked by the HP board. Trump is bound to utter " You're fired " in her direction during the debate.
Tbh, Fiorina looks like someone with more style than substance. The US hardly needs that.
She's restyled her hair from carrot orange to a Romneyesque black with grey/white sidelocks to look more Presidential.
They were some dignified grey streaks. I could vote for a haircut that presidential.
I think beards look Prime Ministerial
I'm told by my son (who knows about such things) that the term "beard" is used in London to describe a woman married to a homosexual who is keen to disguise his homosexuality. As I think someone else says, I've got my coat on.
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Sorry, but if Syria proves anything it proves that the US and its allies don't need to invade a country for it to become destabilized and overrun with people like ISIS. There are no good choices in the Middle East. You only need to look at some of the confusing discussions on here about topics like Libya to see that our politicians don't have an easy job when it comes to this topic.
ISIS originated in Iraq, which Britain and the US invaded.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
The most ridiculous example of this is people still occasionally cite colonial actions from post WW1 as the key factor, when even if they still are a factor (if not the key one), those on the ground really need to have worked through those issues by now and cannot keep relying on that as an excuse (to be fair it's not like we've resolved all the issues in our own back garden, cough, northern ireland), and there are other factors for conflict in the region (Sunni-Shia for instance) which go back even further.
Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.
The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.
But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.
Does he advocate rebuilding the Antonine wall?
Very good. - My Aelle of Sussex joke fell flat on the last thread :-(
No it didn't Mr. Howl, I laughed. However, you must admit it was an obscure reference. I doubt many people knew who Aelle was.
Re Pevensy Castle it was, of course originally by the Romans as can be seen fro the lower tiers of the brickwork, The Normans only added to what was already there, as in so much of England.
Thank you sir. If one cannot do obscure on here there's no hope anywhere!
Tony Blair has admitted his government made a "mistake" by failing to do enough to ensure that devolution of powers to Scotland did not undermine the United Kingdom's national identity.
The former Prime Minister insisted that he still believes he was right to create national assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 1999, arguing that resisting demands for the devolution of power would have stoked up demand for outright independence.
But, in a new book entitled British Labour Leaders, he acknowledged that he did not understand at the time the importance of maintaining cultural unity between the different parts of the UK.
Does he advocate rebuilding the Antonine wall?
Very good. - My Aelle of Sussex joke fell flat on the last thread :-(
No it didn't Mr. Howl, I laughed. However, you must admit it was an obscure reference. I doubt many people knew who Aelle was.
Re Pevensy Castle it was, of course originally by the Romans as can be seen fro the lower tiers of the brickwork, The Normans only added to what was already there, as in so much of England.
In what federal system in the world does every state have a veto over what the federal government does?
None. But that wasn't the question. The question was what a Westminster PM can do to maintain the United Kingdom. That fact that the solution doesn't currently exist doesn't change the reality of it being what would be needed.
And as I said the more fundamental problem is that it would make anyone proposing it at Westminster unelectable.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
So it is on the cards then! How very prescient of me. Location, location, location
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general elachieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Oh dear, you must be in your twenties. Older codgers like myself have been through so many things that were inevitable but werent we lose track of what they all were.
After 38 yrs of voting Lab at every General and Local election told he could not vote in leadership election.
Another Corbyn vote down the Swanny
Disgraceful. And people are talking about a purge should Corbyn get in. Well looks like the Blairites are trying their best to rig and purge the election.
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
I don't think Serbia will be taking many muslim refugees or migrants.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
You think that betting a nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp is a backbone of World Trade?
Bizarre.
You seem unable to appreciate that 21st century Panama and 18th century Panama are very different places.
That's why I described it as woeful, naive and stupid. I guess you were duped by Alanbrooke's logical fallacy.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general elachieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Oh dear, you must be in your twenties. Older codgers like myself have been through so many things that were inevitable but werent we lose track of what they all were.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
You think that betting a nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp is a backbone of World Trade?
Bizarre.
You seem unable to appreciate that 21st century Panama and 18th century Panama are very different places.
That's why I described it as woeful, naive and stupid. I guess you were duped by Alanbrooke's logical fallacy.
well it's more interesting than your phallusy logic.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Sorry, but if Syria proves anything it proves that the US and its allies don't need to invade a country for it to become destabilized and overrun with people like ISIS. There are no good choices in the Middle East. You only need to look at some of the confusing discussions on here about topics like Libya to see that our politicians don't have an easy job when it comes to this topic.
ISIS originated in Iraq, which Britain and the US invaded.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
IS started in Romford Mountain. Every single IS action speak of this. The Holy Mountain of Romford is certainly their prime mantra. Indeed their demolition of historical monuments can only be seen as a protest of the continuing existence of a portaloo on Romford Mountain.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
Be fair. Nearly everything else was okay
Apart from the boats. And the Spaniards. And the Indians. And the leaders. And the embezzlement. And the site chosen.......
So have I, and as always, hope was beaten by experience. They only have an hour, but going for the bright four-year-old market never really works. There's another programme next week but if it's as juvenile, I might give it a miss. Time really is fascinating
It's all fascinating but not a game of lego. I can play theories too. I explained to my four-year old grandson in Sydney (by Skype) that Australians walk on the heads (he's aware of the globe). He looked puzzled but at the next Skype session he countered.
"I don't think you're a proper scientist, Grandad, we don't walk around upside down." "Let's look at the evidence," I said. "Why do Australians have red faces?" "I don't know." "It's because all the blood rushes to their heads."
That should keep him thinking until he learns a bit more.
The Independent has taken the decision to publish the pictures to serve as a stark reminder of the impact of the refugee crisis. The boy pictured is thought to be part of a group of 11 Syrians who drowned off the coastal town of Bodrum in Turkey after an apparent failed attempt to flee the war ravaged country and try to cross the Mediterranean for the safety of Europe
What is about the narrow little Celtic nationalists that makes them so innumerate?
Leanne Wood has said she will not go into coalition with the Tories as they have no mandate in Wales.
General Election result in Wales, May 2015.
Conservatives 26.1%
Plaid Cymru 11.3%
It's because it's allowed to count all non-Tory votes together, so it's 73.9% non Tories to work together, but not ok to count, say, all not PC votes together.
Serious question: When Corbyn wins will the Labour party change European political parties? Either GUE/NGL or G-EFA would be more suited given how far left he is. Although this assumes he makes it to 2019 european elections but who knows...
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
So have I, and as always, hope was beaten by experience. They only have an hour, but going for the bright four-year-old market never really works. There's another programme next week but if it's as juvenile, I might give it a miss. Time really is fascinating
It's all fascinating but not a game of lego. I can play theories too. I explained to my four-year old grandson in Sydney (by Skype) that Australians walk on the heads (he's aware of the globe). He looked puzzled but at the next Skype session he countered.
"I don't think you're a proper scientist, Grandad, we don't walk around upside down." "Let's look at the evidence," I said. "I don't know." "It's because all the blood rushes to their heads."
That should keep him thinking until he learns a bit more.
"Why do Australians have red faces?"
you're setting him up for a cricket gag aren't you ? :-)
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
Sterling? You mean the millstone around Scotland's neck, surely?
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
When I was about 7yrs old, my bigger brother told me that the Earth couldn't spin any faster as we'd all be flung into space. I've no idea how true that is or how stupid as I'm allergic to physics.
So have I, and as always, hope was beaten by experience. They only have an hour, but going for the bright four-year-old market never really works. There's another programme next week but if it's as juvenile, I might give it a miss. Time really is fascinating
It's all fascinating but not a game of lego. I can play theories too. I explained to my four-year old grandson in Sydney (by Skype) that Australians walk on the heads (he's aware of the globe). He looked puzzled but at the next Skype session he countered.
"I don't think you're a proper scientist, Grandad, we don't walk around upside down." "Let's look at the evidence," I said. "Why do Australians have red faces?" "I don't know." "It's because all the blood rushes to their heads."
That should keep him thinking until he learns a bit more.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
I think the mails would be more along the lines of
Dear Dave
if the Nats are so stupid as to run a three year campaign and then lose it, open the taps and get all the stuff out of the Sea asap. Fools and their money are easily parted ( see darrien )
The Independent has taken the decision to publish the pictures to serve as a stark reminder of the impact of the refugee crisis. The boy pictured is thought to be part of a group of 11 Syrians who drowned off the coastal town of Bodrum in Turkey after an apparent failed attempt to flee the war ravaged country and try to cross the Mediterranean for the safety of Europe
Turkey is a war ravaged country? Bloody hell, the BBC never mentioned that.
The death of these people particularly of children is to be greatly regretted and some degree of common sense needs to be maintained.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
I like you, you're funny.
Many of the claims he is making seem completely incorrect to me, but I've stopped caring about Scotland enough to bother arguing.
Comments
Fiorina only looks strong on paper. Sure, she debates well against the undercard, but she has not proven she can campaign and she has little relevant experience, in election where one of the key electorate fatigues in the electorate that counts - the independents - is with a Presidency that had no executive experience. And, although Obama was a quick study on many issues, he never learnt how to operate the Hill - even the with the Dems, let alone the GOP.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
"A true matriarch, a true battleaxe, is fearless. She deals only in moral absolutes, so that those around her flailing in a sea of moral relativism can cling on to her rock-like convictions when mental cramp eventually sets in. She cannot be forged in such tremulous times."
All I can say is that he should get out more. There are plenty of us around.
Some people have it so easy ;-)
It might've been an idea for her to clear a European wide policy first before requesting others pick up the tab for her decision. There again the Greeks tried something similar on her....
I wasn't too sure how to take that one
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
@kle4 Where Britain and the US have ended up being castigated for not intervening, partly because of an idea that we played a part in creating the mess, and therefore we should fix it. I agree that in the long-term, the solution lies with the Arab world though.
Bizarre.
- We printed money to bailout the banks, so we can do it to fund infrastructure (except we actually printed money to stop deflation, and now we have inflation)
- There's been no investment in the railways since privatisation (when it actually increased)
- Full employment is when we have 2% unemployment (when its actually 5% unemployment)
Of course, Charles Clarke isn't bright enough to correct him.
I've about 30 hats and love Safari and Russian style ones the best.
Very good. - My Aelle of Sussex joke fell flat on the last thread :-(
It's hilarious.
Lab £3er who has voted Lab all his life Purged.
After 38 yrs of voting Lab at every General and Local election told he could not vote in leadership election.
Another Corbyn vote down the Swanny
So the idea that we have anytime period in order to do something is actually a figment of your imagination.
Well at least someone appreciates 7th century pagan Sussex! Anyway Normans were Vikings with warmer weather and better cheese.
People with their underpants around their ankles are the backbone of the world's trade.
I've just finished watching Horizon. Lots of clever chappies with big comnputers were talking about multiverses and coming out with ever more outlandish theories, the kind of stuff scientists would laugh at if you said it as a non-scientist. Currently we may all be in a Matrix or not. I can't help thinking at some point physics text books are going to end up starting " In the beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth..."
No it didn't Mr. Howl, I laughed. However, you must admit it was an obscure reference. I doubt many people knew who Aelle was.
Re Pevensy Castle it was, of course originally by the Romans as can be seen fro the lower tiers of the brickwork, The Normans only added to what was already there, as in so much of England.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Re Pevensy Castle it was, of course originally by the Romans as can be seen fro the lower tiers of the brickwork, The Normans only added to what was already there, as in so much of England.
Thank you sir. If one cannot do obscure on here there's no hope anywhere!
Re Pevensy Castle it was, of course originally by the Romans as can be seen fro the lower tiers of the brickwork, The Normans only added to what was already there, as in so much of England.
And as I said the more fundamental problem is that it would make anyone proposing it at Westminster unelectable.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
Leanne Wood has said she will not go into coalition with the Tories as they have no mandate in Wales.
General Election result in Wales, May 2015.
Conservatives 26.1%
Plaid Cymru 11.3%
And the Spaniards.
And the Indians.
And the leaders.
And the embezzlement.
And the site chosen.......
http://www.independent.co.uk/
https://twitter.com/TheOncoming/status/639152488801792000
"I've just finished watching Horizon."
So have I, and as always, hope was beaten by experience. They only have an hour, but going for the bright four-year-old market never really works. There's another programme next week but if it's as juvenile, I might give it a miss. Time really is fascinating
It's all fascinating but not a game of lego. I can play theories too. I explained to my four-year old grandson in Sydney (by Skype) that Australians walk on the heads (he's aware of the globe). He looked puzzled but at the next Skype session he countered.
"I don't think you're a proper scientist, Grandad, we don't walk around upside down."
"Let's look at the evidence," I said. "Why do Australians have red faces?"
"I don't know."
"It's because all the blood rushes to their heads."
That should keep him thinking until he learns a bit more.
@ZacGoldsmith: 45 -15
@team_greenhalgh: 10 -2
@SyedKamall: 9 -3
show of hands at hustings... just shows Zac's lead really - can lose many and still win
The Zoomers want it, and will go mental when Nicola says no
Although this assumes he makes it to 2019 european elections but who knows...
you're setting him up for a cricket gag aren't you ? :-)
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
Dear Dave
if the Nats are so stupid as to run a three year campaign and then lose it, open the taps and get all the stuff out of the Sea asap. Fools and their money are easily parted ( see darrien )
The death of these people particularly of children is to be greatly regretted and some degree of common sense needs to be maintained.
"you're setting him up for a cricket gag aren't you ?"
I am now, I'd forgotten about the Ashes.
Who remembers that brief interlude where Mary Creagh was a candidate?!