As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
I have to be careful what I say, and the fact I feel the need to say that should say more than anything I can say.
Having said (or not said) that, any country where government control of the media has progressed as far as it has in Turkey is in deep trouble IMO. And sadly Turkey is hardly alone in that.
As for the predecessor governments pre-Erdogan; someone said to me that Turks could tolerate an incompetent government, or a corrupt one: the problem with the last secular governments was that they were both corrupt and incompetent, and Turks could not stomach that.
Erdogan's governments started off well for a couple of years, but the rot started during the sham trials against the military and judiciary, which were done with Gulen's help. After which the positions of those jailed were filled with the AKP's place men.
Turkey's at a crossroads. IMO it's in our interests to direct them towards progress, not regression.
But others differ.
Hugely in our interests to steer them onto the right path, if we can. Not sure how much influence we can wield.
'I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing themselves as a downtrodden outpost of it'
Yes which is in line with the victim mentality and fake Scottish history agenda the SNP have pushed.
The result of the next General Election, right here...
@FelicityHannah: My husband showed our 4-yr-old pictures of Hitler and Corbyn and asked which had the nicest face. He picked Corbyn, so that was nice.
@FelicityHannah: Sadly he then picked Cameron out as having a nicer face than Corbyn. If you need more vital political analysis like this, just let me know.
Oh God. Justin Bieber is going to win the election on that basis.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
People across the UK - Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh - all benefited hugely from the Empire, in very different ways. Scotland, for example, would not have developed the industry it did, Glasgow would not be the city it is, without the access to the global markets that the Empire provided. But what we all lack on these islands is a rounded view of what the Empire did and did not do - good and bad - both for the home countries and for the colonised/conquered/created ones. Understandably, it's far too politicised for that.
I think the latent hostility to the Empire tends to be from the left, it was a capitalistic and trade oriented achievement. It brought capitalism to countless countries across the world and made the US the economic super-power it is today.
I always look at it from an Indian perspective (naturally). The Empire achieved great things in India, but it came at a terrible price. Whether that price was one worth paying is what the debate is about. India would not be the same country it is today if the Dutch and then the British had never arrived. The secularisation of India would also never have happened and I think Hinduism being as it is, women's rights would be in a very bad place in India today, much worse than it is at the moment.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
I don't know enough to determine if Max's post is 'rubbish'.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
You continue to deny what it is in front of you and clear for all to see. Erdogan is an Islamic-Sunni supremacist. He is Islamifying Turkey and you continue to defend him. I just don't get it.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
I don't know enough to determine if Max's post is 'rubbish'.
But what is specifically 'bigoted' about it ?
Yes, that was probably an incorrect word. Apologies to MaxPB for that.
The rest of most post stands though. His track record when talking about Turkey is exceptionally poor and would be funny if I didn't suspect he believed it.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
You continue to deny what it is in front of you and clear for all to see. Erdogan is an Islamic-Sunni supremacist. He is Islamifying Turkey and you continue to defend him. I just don't get it.
It's not clear though, is it?
And given your track record I would have thought you would have tried to learn something about the situation.
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
Oh No. John Peel has died. It's almost as if the Grim Reaper has got a "two for the price of one" offer this month. Whoever next? Kenny Everett? Kathleen Ferrier?
Oh No. John Peel has died. It's almost as if the Grim Reaper has got a "two for the price of one" offer this month. Whoever next? Kenny Everett? Kathleen Ferrier?
Discussing the report on the Today programme, Ipsos MORI chief executive Ben Page made it clear that political polling didn’t bring in much cash compared to the work done for corporate clients - and he even went as far as suggesting that pollsters might just call it a day with election surveys.
“What you have to remember is out of the 1500 people I employ in London, only three of them are doing election polling. This is something that the industry does, to be honest, at relatively low budgets. The money that is available to pay for election polling is miniscule compared to the vast majority of what the industry is doing.
“And there are some really interesting questions about whether we should stop doing it altogether.”
Except that political polling is by far the most visible work that they do: it's advertising their brand to no small extent rather than revenue-raising. You'd think they might recognise that.
The funny thing is, that the pollsters weren't out by all that much. 34/34 Con/Lab as opposed to 38/31.
But, both the error, and differing vote patterns in Scotland, English and Welsh marginal seats, and Lib Dem constituencies made a huge difference to the outcome.
If the difference had been +/+ rather than +/- (i.e. 40/33 instead of 37/30, with the difference coming from, say, Ukip and the Greens), the public and media would have barely noticed. The polling industry's fatal errors were twofold: getting the Con-Lab gap so far out, and doing so in an election where that primary error translated into a different outcome in terms of government form.
People across the UK - Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh - all benefited hugely from the Empire, in very different ways. Scotland, for example, would not have developed the industry it did, Glasgow would not be the city it is, without the access to the global markets that the Empire provided. But what we all lack on these islands is a rounded view of what the Empire did and did not do - good and bad - both for the home countries and for the colonised/conquered/created ones. Understandably, it's far too politicised for that.
I think the latent hostility to the Empire tends to be from the left, it was a capitalistic and trade oriented achievement. It brought capitalism to countless countries across the world and made the US the economic super-power it is today.
I always look at it from an Indian perspective (naturally). The Empire achieved great things in India, but it came at a terrible price. Whether that price was one worth paying is what the debate is about. India would not be the same country it is today if the Dutch and then the British had never arrived. The secularisation of India would also never have happened and I think Hinduism being as it is, women's rights would be in a very bad place in India today, much worse than it is at the moment.
India would not be a country and what would the BJP be then?
The left dwells on the Empire's iniquities and cruelties, the right on its glories and triumphs. It's very political. Niall Ferguson's book about it is the best short guide I have read.
Oh No. John Peel has died. It's almost as if the Grim Reaper has got a "two for the price of one" offer this month. Whoever next? Kenny Everett? Kathleen Ferrier?
I was a big defender of the coverage David Bowie's death recieved but I have to say that leading news bulletins with the death of the Eagles' guitarist is a bit much...
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
Rather than criticise, what's your solution? He is the president, the refugees are in Turkey and need support.
Oh No. John Peel has died. It's almost as if the Grim Reaper has got a "two for the price of one" offer this month. Whoever next? Kenny Everett? Kathleen Ferrier?
I was a big defender of the coverage David Bowie's death recieved but I have to say that leading news bulletins with the death of the Eagles' guitarist is a bit much...
Fair point but I'm not sure how well it works in a multi-party system.
In the US, most elections are actually or effectively binary; there are few meaningful third-party interventions, so comparing favourability ratings is a good proxy indicator and perhaps even a better one than stated VI.
In the UK, how do we translate ratings into seats? We know roughly how to do it with vote shares but was does Cameron -6 / Corbyn -38 look like when translated to the Commons?
It's been said that there's no magic bullet to the industry's problem and I'd agree with that. There needs to be a range of data used and I'd agree with Mike that approval / likability ratings have a strong predictive element but are still something of a blunt tool.
Lebo & Norpoth discovered that if the PM approval rating was >50% of the two-party vote, the PM's party (almost) invariably won the election, in terms of the popular vote. It's a little more complicated, since there is also an autoregressive component, meaning the more a party keeps winning, the higher the PM approval required to win again.
Seats are a bit more problematic, although their model was pretty good, until they panicked a bit in 2015, and made ad-hoc adjustments.
That makes intuitive sense. Did they find that the same also applied to LOTOs?
They found that LOTO ratings didn't significantly improve the model, and weren't worth the added complexity.
On the face of it that could be taken to mean that Labour don't need to worry about Corbyn. It's only Cameron's replacement's approval rating that will matter.
However there may be some connection between the two ratings - ie, when asked if they approve of the PM people may compare him/her to the LOTO.
IIRC, another reason they ignored LOTO was because they didn't have a complete dataset, unlike PM approval which went all the way back to 1945.
Yes, they are probably negatively correlated, in any case. It would be quite bizarre, wouldn't it, to find both PM and LOTO top of the hit parade with the public, or simultaneously the pits?
The historical record suggests changing PM provides a makeover for the incumbent party, and a boost in popularity.
Eden, snap election leading to landslide Macmillan, landslide, after the humiliation of Suez Douglas-Home, almost won, after the Tories were written off. Callaghan, could have won in 1978. Major, won, after the Tories were written off. Brown, dithered in 2007, to his doom...
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
You continue to deny what it is in front of you and clear for all to see. Erdogan is an Islamic-Sunni supremacist. He is Islamifying Turkey and you continue to defend him. I just don't get it.
It's not clear though, is it?
And given your track record I would have thought you would have tried to learn something about the situation.
It is clear, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
My hostility towards Islam is pretty obvious, I don't try to hide it. Erdogan is Islamifying Turkey and trying to bring down secular regimes in his locality. He is turning a blind eye to ISIS and is allied to the other major Sunni state, Saudi Arabia, which actively encouraged ISIS and funded them when they were a "Sunni militant group" in Iraq. To our shame we are allied to Saudi Arabia as well, but that is for a different discussion.
It is disappointing when it has become difficult to tell which country has the more moderate and modernising leadership wrt to Iran and Turkey. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran there was never a debate, but today with Rouhani in place, the younger Khomeini looking likely to become the new supreme leader (another major reformist) vs Erdogan slowly but surely Islamifying Turkey they will cross over in the next 3-7 years.
You can stay in denial that Erdogan is a detestable Islamist radical, that's really up to you.
People across the UK - Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh - all benefited hugely from the Empire, in very different ways. Scotland, for example, would not have developed the industry it did, Glasgow would not be the city it is, without the access to the global markets that the Empire provided. But what we all lack on these islands is a rounded view of what the Empire did and did not do - good and bad - both for the home countries and for the colonised/conquered/created ones. Understandably, it's far too politicised for that.
I think the latent hostility to the Empire tends to be from the left, it was a capitalistic and trade oriented achievement. It brought capitalism to countless countries across the world and made the US the economic super-power it is today.
I always look at it from an Indian perspective (naturally). The Empire achieved great things in India, but it came at a terrible price. Whether that price was one worth paying is what the debate is about. India would not be the same country it is today if the Dutch and then the British had never arrived. The secularisation of India would also never have happened and I think Hinduism being as it is, women's rights would be in a very bad place in India today, much worse than it is at the moment.
India would not be a country and what would the BJP be then?
The left dwells on the Empire's iniquities and cruelties, the right on its glories and triumphs. It's very political. Niall Ferguson's book about it is the best short guide I have read.
I don't know who wrote it but I would definitely disagree with the statement that the Empire made the US what it is (unless you date it back to the actual establishment of the American colonies, which I suppose you could). US has always been based on a very strong domestic economy, hence some of the problems caused by their leadership of the world economy. Britain was forced to trade, hence the drive for worldwide stability.
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
The Empire is complicated.
Signing up to the rank and file of the British Army back in the time of empire was a completely different proposition to what it is now. It wasn't a way to see the world and earn a lump sum to set you up in life - it was basically a life term. you signed up to be an infantry man not out of patriotism but because your life in Britain was going to be really bloody awful.
The Highlands was already having its population slashed by the Clearances was then targeted for recruiting by the British Army to then suck away even more young men affecting the demographics further. The desperate crushing poverty of North Britain drove them into the arms of the Army.
Rather than using their labour and talent at home to make the highlands a better place to be they were used to win foreign lands for the lords and knights to rule in far off disease ridden places.
So it is undoubtedly true that Scotland in aggregate benefited from the fruits of the Empire it did so by the draining of it's labour, many of it's best engineers and administrators heading to elsewhere rather than using their talents at home and the mass of soldiery going overseas rather than labouring at the hearth to build a better future in Scotia. So it is not trivial or easy to say what was or was not best/
The Empire is complicated and supports many, many different interpretations.
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
I hesitate to offer football advice, after the e/w recommendation on Chelsea earlier this season. Ahem.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Anecdote alert. Every Labour supporter (non member) that I personally know is now anti Corbyn.
And some Labour members I know are beginning tentatively to voice doubts in public (hitherto expressed in private).
Neither was the case last Autumn. The latter change is quite significant as it means standing up to the ultras as an unbeliever.
Talking about nuclear subs without nukes is going to do that...
I said back in the summer that what Labour needed to regain its relevance was to let the bat-shit crazies have a go at driving the car, and for them to do exactly as they are doing now. That is the only way that a raft of voter-repellent policies - and the people that espouse them - could be given their moment in the sun.
Under a magnifying glass.
Only then can these folk be told once and for all to STFU.
Or someone predicting the destruction of the SNP after losing the referendum?
I don't recall any such predictions, but it is interesting to watch the growing dissent in the Zoomer ranks.
The whole WheeshtForIndy campaign is hilarious.
Ha Ha Ha , at least there are enough SNP people to have a discussion over policy. Do you ever hear your Tory policies ( LOL ) being discussed by Tories on Tory blogs. Come the surge we will have a great laugh.
We've entered the realm of Peak Zoomer.
The Loyalist halfwits are screaming for eye-watering taxes while providing no state services to those paying the bulk of those taxes. How did PB become infested with these hardline Marxist/Leninists?
(Snip)It is clear, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
My hostility towards Islam is pretty obvious, I don't try to hide it. Erdogan is Islamifying Turkey and trying to bring down secular regimes in his locality. He is turning a blind eye to ISIS and is allied to the other major Sunni state, Saudi Arabia, which actively encouraged ISIS and funded them when they were a "Sunni militant group" in Iraq. To our shame we are allied to Saudi Arabia as well, but that is for a different discussion.
It is disappointing when it has become difficult to tell which country has the more moderate and modernising leadership wrt to Iran and Turkey. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran there was never a debate, but today with Rouhani in place, the younger Khomeini looking likely to become the new supreme leader (another major reformist) vs Erdogan slowly but surely Islamifying Turkey they will cross over in the next 3-7 years.
You can stay in denial that Erdogan is a detestable Islamist radical, that's really up to you.
No, it isn't clear. You refuse to look beyond propaganda, as can be seen from you comments in the past (remember your confusion over groups that both happened to have 'Turk' in their names?). Unsurprisingly, it also seems allied with a certain pro-Assad slant.
Again, I ask you to re-read your post. It's ridiculous and turns a blind eye to both the situation Turkey finds itself in, and the local situation.
As I've said, I'm no fan of Erdogan. But that does not mean I have to agree with your rantings against him.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
Rather than criticise, what's your solution? He is the president, the refugees are in Turkey and need support.
Give the aid directly in the form of goods and services would surely be one solution. Who knows how much of that money is going to escape down the back of the sofa? They may be planning to do elements of that already, I don't know.
In the longer term, recognise that the rebellion in Syria has hit the buffers, ensure a stable regime in Syria, and let people back in.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting breakdowns.
Generally speaking, do you think the British Empire was UK 43% A good thing 19% A bad thing 25% Neither a good nor bad thing 13% DK =+24% NET
Scotland 30% A good thing 34% A bad thing 26% Neither a good nor bad thing 11% DK =-4% NET
—
UK Do you think Britain’s history of colonialism is… 44% Part of our history that we should proud happened 21% Part of our history that we should regret happening 23% Neither 13% DK =+23% NET
Scotland Do you think Britain’s history of colonialism is… 34% Part of our history that we should proud happened 36% Part of our history that we should regret happening 18% Neither 11% DK =-2% NET
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
I hesitate to offer football advice, after the e/w recommendation on Chelsea earlier this season. Ahem.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Not mentioning Leicester? Surely 16/1 is worth a punt given their form so far, their record of injuries (or lack thereof), and their non-involvement in Europe?
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
People across the UK - Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh - all benefited hugely from the Empire, in very different ways. Scotland, for example, would not have developed the industry it did, Glasgow would not be the city it is, without the access to the global markets that the Empire provided. But what we all lack on these islands is a rounded view of what the Empire did and did not do - good and bad - both for the home countries and for the colonised/conquered/created ones. Understandably, it's far too politicised for that.
I think the latent hostility to the Empire tends to be from the left, it was a capitalistic and trade oriented achievement. It brought capitalism to countless countries across the world and made the US the economic super-power it is today.
@MaxPB I think there would be a lot less criticism of the Empire from the Left if it had actually been capitalistic. The Empire was nakedly Mercantilistic - shipping raw materials from colonial countries for manufacturing in the UK and fished goods back the other way denying the colonial countries the chance to develop economically (and thus compete with the UK).
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
I hesitate to offer football advice, after the e/w recommendation on Chelsea earlier this season. Ahem.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Not mentioning Leicester? Surely 16/1 is worth a punt given their form so far, their record of injuries (or lack thereof), and their non-involvement in Europe?
Nope. Both the form and the injuries so far are very good but should not be expected to continue at this level. Generally bookies do well by following the "form is temporary, class is permanent" maxim. Occasionally Corbyn f*cks it all up.
Anecdote alert. Every Labour supporter (non member) that I personally know is now anti Corbyn.
And some Labour members I know are beginning tentatively to voice doubts in public (hitherto expressed in private).
Neither was the case last Autumn. The latter change is quite significant as it means standing up to the ultras as an unbeliever.
Talking about nuclear subs without nukes is going to do that...
I said back in the summer that what Labour needed to regain its relevance was to let the bat-shit crazies have a go at driving the car, and for them to do exactly as they are doing now. That is the only way that a raft of voter-repellent policies - and the people that espouse them - could be given their moment in the sun.
Under a magnifying glass.
Only then can these folk be told once and for all to STFU.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
Rather than criticise, what's your solution? He is the president, the refugees are in Turkey and need support.
Close our borders to Turkey, do a deal with Assad and try and get Syria sorted out. The situation there is beyond lamentable when on one side you have Assad, Russia and Iran, on another it's the US, UK and France (with a few other western nations) who want to both defeat ISIS and defeat Assad, and on another side you have Saudi Arabia and their Sunni coalition who want to defeat Assad and are backing Sunni-Islamists who are as bad as ISIS or allied to ISIS.
What is happening in Syria is a symptom of the Sunni/Shia civil war, we have, erroneously IMO, backed the wrong side. Those refugees in Turkey may need help now, but unless we solve the long term issue in the ME they have nowhere to go, especially if Germany finally decides to shut up shop.
We can still direct our aid agencies directly to the camps in Turkey and make them acceptable in the short term (the same is true for Lebanon and Jordan btw).
So there you have it, make nice with the Assad regime and stabilise Syria. No other solution is available. This idea that we can back "moderate" rebels against ISIS who will then go and topple Assad without leaving a massive power vacuum for ISIS to fill is beyond a joke. There is only one credible party in the Syrian war we can do a deal with, we may not like it, but it doesn't change the facts. It is a ridiculous argument made by stupid people.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
Scotland pioneered universal education and was streets ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of public education for nearly two centuries. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Scotland could not have developed a successful trading economy much in the way that the Netherlands or Denmark did.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money, instead of 70% or more of it being drained down to feed London (as evidenced from the early 20th century UK accounts).
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
The Empire is complicated.
Signing up to the rank and file of the British Army back in the time of empire was a completely different proposition to what it is now. It wasn't a way to see the world and earn a lump sum to set you up in life - it was basically a life term. you signed up to be an infantry man not out of patriotism but because your life in Britain was going to be really bloody awful.
The Highlands was already having its population slashed by the Clearances was then targeted for recruiting by the British Army to then suck away even more young men affecting the demographics further. The desperate crushing poverty of North Britain drove them into the arms of the Army.
Rather than using their labour and talent at home to make the highlands a better place to be they were used to win foreign lands for the lords and knights to rule in far off disease ridden places.
So it is undoubtedly true that Scotland in aggregate benefited from the fruits of the Empire it did so by the draining of it's labour, many of it's best engineers and administrators heading to elsewhere rather than using their talents at home and the mass of soldiery going overseas rather than labouring at the hearth to build a better future in Scotia. So it is not trivial or easy to say what was or was not best/
The Empire is complicated and supports many, many different interpretations.
There is a lot in what you say, but you haven't described circumstances that are either peculiar to the Empire era, or peculiar to Scotland. The army and navy have always been made up of recruits that were virtually kidnapped, always because there was no other financial alternative. People in all areas of the UK were driven off the land by the Act of Enclosure. The middle classes have always worked their socks off on behalf of an elite. And financial investments being made in the Empire in preference to being made in the UK economy was common throughout the era, and I agree was a problem. It's important to recognise there were casualties of the era, but I don't see a case for a special victimhood for Scotland.
The Empire was partly created out of necessity, Britain needed to trade after being frozen out Europe by Napoleon's continental system, a fact which has a certain parallel for today, perhaps.
(Snip)It is clear, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
My hostility towards Islam is pretty obvious, I don't try to hide it. Erdogan is Islamifying Turkey and trying to bring down secular regimes in his locality. He is turning a blind eye to ISIS and is allied to the other major Sunni state, Saudi Arabia, which actively encouraged ISIS and funded them when they were a "Sunni militant group" in Iraq. To our shame we are allied to Saudi Arabia as well, but that is for a different discussion.
It is disappointing when it has become difficult to tell which country has the more moderate and modernising leadership wrt to Iran and Turkey. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran there was never a debate, but today with Rouhani in place, the younger Khomeini looking likely to become the new supreme leader (another major reformist) vs Erdogan slowly but surely Islamifying Turkey they will cross over in the next 3-7 years.
You can stay in denial that Erdogan is a detestable Islamist radical, that's really up to you.
No, it isn't clear. You refuse to look beyond propaganda, as can be seen from you comments in the past (remember your confusion over groups that both happened to have 'Turk' in their names?). Unsurprisingly, it also seems allied with a certain pro-Assad slant.
Again, I ask you to re-read your post. It's ridiculous and turns a blind eye to both the situation Turkey finds itself in, and the local situation.
As I've said, I'm no fan of Erdogan. But that does not mean I have to agree with your rantings against him.
I'm not pro-Assad so much as I am anti-ISIS and anti-Saudi. Assad, as I have said time and time again, is the least worst solution to the problems in Syria. That a smart guy like you can't deal with that is puzzling, but it does put your defence of Erdogan into context.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
Rather than criticise, what's your solution? He is the president, the refugees are in Turkey and need support.
Give the aid directly in the form of goods and services would surely be one solution. Who knows how much of that money is going to escape down the back of the sofa? They may be planning to do elements of that already, I don't know.
In the longer term, recognise that the rebellion in Syria has hit the buffers, ensure a stable regime in Syria, and let people back in.
In principle, that's right (certainly with regard to aid - though like you, I don't know how much is already delivered like that). 'Ensuring' a stable (and non-threatening) regime in Syria is a bigger task though!
'I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing themselves as a downtrodden outpost of it'
Yes which is in line with the victim mentality and fake Scottish history agenda the SNP have pushed.
All that has happened is that the scales have fallen from people's eyes and the lies of Empire are exposed, the lies of British rule are exposed and the loss Scotland has unquestionable suffered is exposed.
And worse, we can see Wales and Norway. The glaring examples on our very doorstep. One is what Scotland will become under British rule, a backward, bankrupt hellhole, the other what Scotland would have been without generations of loss (of money, of people, of resources) to feed the London machine.
Close our borders to Turkey, do a deal with Assad and try and get Syria sorted out. The situation there is beyond lamentable when on one side you have Assad, Russia and Iran, on another it's the US, UK and France (with a few other western nations) who want to both defeat ISIS and defeat Assad, and on another side you have Saudi Arabia and their Sunni coalition who want to defeat Assad and are backing Sunni-Islamists who are as bad as ISIS or allied to ISIS.
What is happening in Syria is a symptom of the Sunni/Shia civil war, we have, erroneously IMO, backed the wrong side. Those refugees in Turkey may need help now, but unless we solve the long term issue in the ME they have nowhere to go, especially if Germany finally decides to shut up shop.
We can still direct our aid agencies directly to the camps in Turkey and make them acceptable in the short term (the same is true for Lebanon and Jordan btw).
So there you have it, make nice with the Assad regime and stabilise Syria. No other solution is available. This idea that we can back "moderate" rebels against ISIS who will then go and topple Assad without leaving a massive power vacuum for ISIS to fill is beyond a joke. There is only one credible party in the Syrian war we can do a deal with, we may not like it, but it doesn't change the facts. It is a ridiculous argument made by stupid people.
Your argument is to do a deal with mass-murderer Assad, rather than Erdogan, to protect people being directly hurt by Assad and his Iranian and Russian friends?
What a surprise.
Is it fair to say that in your eyes, Erdogan is worse than Assad?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Scotland could not have developed a successful trading economy much in the way that the Netherlands or Denmark did.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money,
Oh FFS, you do know the Union came about as a result of Scotland completely fcking up mercantile trade?
Please go back to telling us how "Scotland can't flood"...
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
I hesitate to offer football advice, after the e/w recommendation on Chelsea earlier this season. Ahem.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Not mentioning Leicester? Surely 16/1 is worth a punt given their form so far, their record of injuries (or lack thereof), and their non-involvement in Europe?
Nope. Both the form and the injuries so far are very good but should not be expected to continue at this level. Generally bookies do well by following the "form is temporary, class is permanent" maxim. Occasionally Corbyn f*cks it all up.
Form has lasted over half the season so far. I'm not saying they should be favourites but only a 6% chance? Seems low to me.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
Interesting compared to the perception above from tax haven Scot who hates Scotland. I wonder which one is accurate, the view from Scotland or the bitter exile one.
Southampton University don’t themselves go so far as to claim evidence of deliberate manipulation of the 2015 result. Indeed, they go out of their way to state: “It is important to note that the possibility that herding took place need not imply malpractice on the part of polling organisations.”
But that’s precisely what the results imply. To believe deliberate herding did not take place, you have to believe the following:
Firstly, that every one of the polling companies independently and miraculously made the same methodological error. Secondly, that they not only made the same methodological error, but that it was made in such a way that it miraculously produced exactly the same margin between the Conservatives and Labour, despite the fact all the polls were of different samples, used different interview techniques, were conducted in different locations and over different time periods. Thirdly, you have to believe this alignment also just happened to miraculously occur around the very final poll of a five year election cycle. And fourthly, you also have to believe the – erroneous – result that was produced miraculously happened to be the most convenient for the pollsters themselves – namely, that the election outcome was “too close to call”.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
Rather than criticise, what's your solution? He is the president, the refugees are in Turkey and need support.
Give the aid directly in the form of goods and services would surely be one solution. Who knows how much of that money is going to escape down the back of the sofa? They may be planning to do elements of that already, I don't know.
In the longer term, recognise that the rebellion in Syria has hit the buffers, ensure a stable regime in Syria, and let people back in.
In principle, that's right (certainly with regard to aid - though like you, I don't know how much is already delivered like that). 'Ensuring' a stable (and non-threatening) regime in Syria is a bigger task though!
Is there any answer that doesn't start with As and end with sad though? The opportunity to do a deal is still there, our leaders just need to have the balls to tell Saudi Arabia where it can stick it's dirty oil money and tell BAE and its shareholders to like it or lump it if the Saudis decide not to buy our arms.
I think there would be a lot less criticism of the Empire from the Left if it had actually been capitalistic. The Empire was nakedly Mercantilistic - shipping raw materials from colonial countries for manufacturing in the UK and fished goods back the other way denying the colonial countries the chance to develop economically (and thus compete with the UK).
Even after all these years I keep using the words "capitalist" and "mercantilist" as if they're synonyms. Then somebody cleverer than me points out that they are not. Good reminder, thank you.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
LOL, given their track record on the kurds and your one supporting them , is it just admiration from afar rather than being a fan.
...does that blame Foot for 'waiting' for the election in 4 years? As in, wanting to get elected into office rather than...something else, was a bad thing is the implication?
The Empire was partly created out of necessity, Britain needed to trade after being frozen out Europe by Napoleon's continental system, a fact which has a certain parallel for today, perhaps.
That would have required time travel: the Empire predated Napoleon by some margin.
(Snip)It is clear, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
My hostility towards Islam is pretty obvious, I don't try to hide it. Erdogan is Islamifying Turkey and trying to bring down secular regimes in his locality. He is turning a blind eye to ISIS and is allied to the other major Sunni state, Saudi Arabia, which actively encouraged ISIS and funded them when they were a "Sunni militant group" in Iraq. To our shame we are allied to Saudi Arabia as well, but that is for a different discussion.
It is disappointing when it has become difficult to tell which country has the more moderate and modernising leadership wrt to Iran and Turkey. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran there was never a debate, but today with Rouhani in place, the younger Khomeini looking likely to become the new supreme leader (another major reformist) vs Erdogan slowly but surely Islamifying Turkey they will cross over in the next 3-7 years.
You can stay in denial that Erdogan is a detestable Islamist radical, that's really up to you.
No, it isn't clear. You refuse to look beyond propaganda, as can be seen from you comments in the past (remember your confusion over groups that both happened to have 'Turk' in their names?). Unsurprisingly, it also seems allied with a certain pro-Assad slant.
Again, I ask you to re-read your post. It's ridiculous and turns a blind eye to both the situation Turkey finds itself in, and the local situation.
As I've said, I'm no fan of Erdogan. But that does not mean I have to agree with your rantings against him.
I'm not pro-Assad so much as I am anti-ISIS and anti-Saudi. Assad, as I have said time and time again, is the least worst solution to the problems in Syria. That a smart guy like you can't deal with that is puzzling, but it does put your defence of Erdogan into context.
"Assad, as I have said time and time again, is the least worst solution to the problems in Syria."
Assad was the cause of the problems. His regime have murdered more people than ISIS. His use of chemical weapons should put him well beyond the pail of civilisation.
Putting him back in the medium- and long-term would be a disaster for Syria and region.
That a smart guy like you can't deal with that is puzzling, but it does put your hatred of Erdogan into context.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
I hesitate to offer football advice, after the e/w recommendation on Chelsea earlier this season. Ahem.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Not mentioning Leicester? Surely 16/1 is worth a punt given their form so far, their record of injuries (or lack thereof), and their non-involvement in Europe?
I think Leicester top 4 is pretty likely, but winning less so. I should poit out that our run started March 4, not in August. Since March we have lost 3 League matches. I think the top 5 of this league will remain the same, but the order will change.
In Feb we have Man City away then Arsenal away. If Leicester come out of those with points then I wouldn't rule out winning the league. We then have a good run until the last 3 games which are a pretty tough run in.
2 very good signings this window, but a further striker needed.
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
I hesitate to offer football advice, after the e/w recommendation on Chelsea earlier this season. Ahem.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Not mentioning Leicester? Surely 16/1 is worth a punt given their form so far, their record of injuries (or lack thereof), and their non-involvement in Europe?
Nope. Both the form and the injuries so far are very good but should not be expected to continue at this level. Generally bookies do well by following the "form is temporary, class is permanent" maxim. Occasionally Corbyn f*cks it all up.
Form has lasted over half the season so far. I'm not saying they should be favourites but only a 6% chance? Seems low to me.
They're still the best part of a goal per game inferior to MC/Arsenal, in terms of expectation. For example, they're evens to beat Stoke, at home, this weekend. Man City would be something like 2/5. Overall that plays through into the overall numbers and makes them more like a 3% chance. Which is still amazing at this point of the season, given they were all but 0% in July.
If you think Leicester are still being under-rated, backing them in games such as the Stoke one is probably the more sensible way to go. Though not as much fun, of course.
Close our borders to Turkey, do a deal with Assad and try and get Syria sorted out. The situation there is beyond lamentable when on one side you have Assad, Russia and Iran, on another it's the US, UK and France (with a few other western nations) who want to both defeat ISIS and defeat Assad, and on another side you have Saudi Arabia and their Sunni coalition who want to defeat Assad and are backing Sunni-Islamists who are as bad as ISIS or allied to ISIS.
What is happening in Syria is a symptom of the Sunni/Shia civil war, we have, erroneously IMO, backed the wrong side. Those refugees in Turkey may need help now, but unless we solve the long term issue in the ME they have nowhere to go, especially if Germany finally decides to shut up shop.
We can still direct our aid agencies directly to the camps in Turkey and make them acceptable in the short term (the same is true for Lebanon and Jordan btw).
So there you have it, make nice with the Assad regime and stabilise Syria. No other solution is available. This idea that we can back "moderate" rebels against ISIS who will then go and topple Assad without leaving a massive power vacuum for ISIS to fill is beyond a joke. There is only one credible party in the Syrian war we can do a deal with, we may not like it, but it doesn't change the facts. It is a ridiculous argument made by stupid people.
Your argument is to do a deal with mass-murderer Assad, rather than Erdogan, to protect people being directly hurt by Assad and his Iranian and Russian friends?
What a surprise.
Is it fair to say that in your eyes, Erdogan is worse than Assad?
I don't believe Erdogan would act any differently to Assad if faced with the same situation, at least if he faced a foreign backed "rebel" army of Shia militants. Though the Turkish military is in much better shape than Syria's so it wouldn't be as bloody.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
I have to be careful what I say, and the fact I feel the need to say that should say more than anything I can say.
Having said (or not said) that, any country where government control of the media has progressed as far as it has in Turkey is in deep trouble IMO. And sadly Turkey is hardly alone in that.
As for the predecessor governments pre-Erdogan; someone said to me that Turks could tolerate an incompetent government, or a corrupt one: the problem with the last secular governments was that they were both corrupt and incompetent, and Turks could not stomach that.
Erdogan's governments started off well for a couple of years, but the rot started during the sham trials against the military and judiciary, which were done with Gulen's help. After which the positions of those jailed were filled with the AKP's place men.
Turkey's at a crossroads. IMO it's in our interests to direct them towards progress, not regression.
But others differ.
Hugely in our interests to steer them onto the right path, if we can. Not sure how much influence we can wield.
None , they are happy to take our money and continue what they are doing , a bad lot but not unusual for us to be tied up with those types.
Hot Diggity @MaxPB. However I've heard that Erdogan and hence Turkey are putting "make-up" feelers to Israel and that Israel has made a tentative promising response. After all Israel must sell it's gas from the new fields somewhere.
The rewriting of Scottish and British Empire history is an absolute hoot - more please!
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
I don't know enough to determine if Max's post is 'rubbish'.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
Scotland pioneered universal education and was streets ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of public education for nearly two centuries. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Scotland could not have developed a successful trading economy much in the way that the Netherlands or Denmark did.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money, instead of 70% or more of it being drained down to feed London (as evidenced from the early 20th century UK accounts).
My personal view is that Scotland would not have done as well without being part of Britain at that time, and that the Empire would not have done half so well without the involvement of Scotland and its people. I find your view a peculiar mix of resentment and unwarranted shame at your countrymen's enthusiastic participation.
"Assad, as I have said time and time again, is the least worst solution to the problems in Syria."
Assad was the cause of the problems. His regime have murdered more people than ISIS. His use of chemical weapons should put him well beyond the pail of civilisation.
Putting him back in the medium- and long-term would be a disaster for Syria and region.
That a smart guy like you can't deal with that is puzzling, but it does put your hatred of Erdogan into context.
Please propose a realistic solution then? Removal of Assad and a Sunni-backed overseer from Saudi Arabia? How would Syria's minority Shia and Alawites (let alone Christians who have a history of facing persecution in Sunni countries) react to that?
The cause of the problems was us filling the heads of naive ME/Arab students that they could achieve a lasting democratic settlement after the Arab Spring uprising in Syria. We encouraged that folly. Obviously since then things have moved on.
So you are saying that Assad is worse than ISIS? I'll let other people draw their own conclusions on that.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
People across the UK - Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh - all benefited hugely from the Empire, in very different ways. Scotland, for example, would not have developed the industry it did, Glasgow would not be the city it is, without the access to the global markets that the Empire provided. But what we all lack on these islands is a rounded view of what the Empire did and did not do - good and bad - both for the home countries and for the colonised/conquered/created ones. Understandably, it's far too politicised for that.
I think the latent hostility to the Empire tends to be from the left, it was a capitalistic and trade oriented achievement. It brought capitalism to countless countries across the world and made the US the economic super-power it is today.
@MaxPB I think there would be a lot less criticism of the Empire from the Left if it had actually been capitalistic. The Empire was nakedly Mercantilistic - shipping raw materials from colonial countries for manufacturing in the UK and fished goods back the other way denying the colonial countries the chance to develop economically (and thus compete with the UK).
Always the same when the weak trade with the strong. TTIP (and the others) are the US' modern equivalent. Goodness only knows what China will be like when they get going.
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
For once you under-sell Scotland. It wasn't just the civil servants and administrators, it was the manufacturers and ship-builders in Scotland, as well as the engineers, and the dour accountants, and the doctors, and the missionaries, and the military men, who went all over the world. The British Empire was disproportionately an achievement of the Scottish part of the union.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Scotland could not have developed a successful trading economy much in the way that the Netherlands or Denmark did.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money,
Oh FFS, you do know the Union came about as a result of Scotland completely fcking up mercantile trade?
Please go back to telling us how "Scotland can't flood"...
The Scots should have stayed dry. But some evil Ewoks lowered the defensive force field....
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
I hesitate to offer football advice, after the e/w recommendation on Chelsea earlier this season. Ahem.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
Not mentioning Leicester? Surely 16/1 is worth a punt given their form so far, their record of injuries (or lack thereof), and their non-involvement in Europe?
Nope. Both the form and the injuries so far are very good but should not be expected to continue at this level. Generally bookies do well by following the "form is temporary, class is permanent" maxim. Occasionally Corbyn f*cks it all up.
Form has lasted over half the season so far. I'm not saying they should be favourites but only a 6% chance? Seems low to me.
They're still the best part of a goal per game inferior to MC/Arsenal, in terms of expectation. For example, they're evens to beat Stoke, at home, this weekend. Man City would be something like 2/5. Overall that plays through into the overall numbers and makes them more like a 3% chance. Which is still amazing at this point of the season, given they were all but 0% in July.
If you think Leicester are still being under-rated, backing them in games such as the Stoke one is probably the more sensible way to go. Though not as much fun, of course.
We may be scoring less but are also conceding fewer. Lots of clean sheets recently.
I would say that 16/1 is not bad value, if I hadn't got a pound each way at 3000/1 in August!
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
What rubbish. That's just stupid, bigoted rubbish. I'm far from being a fan of Erdogan, but your stupid posts sadly make me have to defend him. And that peeves me somewhat...
LOL, given their track record on the kurds and your one supporting them , is it just admiration from afar rather than being a fan.
I've written about the Kurds on here many times before; I have a great deal of sympathy for their plight. But the terrorist activities of the PKK (who make the IRA look like peaceniks) are a major problem, as is Turkey's present and historic reaction to the violence.
As ever, it is the peaceful civilians who get it in the neck from both sides. It is the civilians, rather than the politicians, we should be thinking of.
They should have got a homeland post WW1. But the Kurds were then, and are now, fairly split (it took them a few years even to merge the command of the various Peshmergas, and that task is allegedly incomplete). I'm fairly certain that even a putative Kurdistan combining Kurdish regions in Syria and Iraq would fail.
Basically: the Kurds are not a homogeneous grouping. Syrian Kurds might have more in common with Syrians than Iraqi Kurds, and vice versa.
As I've mentioned before, my route forward would be to create a semi-autonomous Kurdish region in Syria, as there is in Iraq. Then in a few years let them choose if they want to join together or remain as nominal parts of their states.
Turkey won't like it, but they can probably be persuaded.
Hot Diggity @MaxPB. However I've heard that Erdogan and hence Turkey are putting "make-up" feelers to Israel and that Israel has made a tentative promising response. After all Israel must sell it's gas from the new fields somewhere.
They normalised diplomatic relations some months ago I believe.
As someone who has never been anti-Turkish, hostile to Erdogan (his secular predecessors were basically Army front-men) or uncritically enthusiastic about Kurdish separatists, this interview makes sobering reading:
I suppose it's a good thing that he was allowed to give the interview, but still. Josias knows more than most of us about the situation there -any comment on this?
Given what's happened in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, army front-men or secular strong men are very probably the least-worst option in that part of the world. It would be a catastrophe if Turkey were to go the same way.
What does giving him a €3bn bung achieve? Surely it legitimises him further and hurts his internal opponents. Erdogan is more like the Saudi leadership than he is like al-Sisi or Mubarak. He is a detestable person who seeks Sunni dominion over his neighbouring countries which is why he allows trucks of ISIS oil and cash to cross his borders openly.
Rather than criticise, what's your solution? He is the president, the refugees are in Turkey and need support.
Give the aid directly in the form of goods and services would surely be one solution. Who knows how much of that money is going to escape down the back of the sofa? They may be planning to do elements of that already, I don't know.
In the longer term, recognise that the rebellion in Syria has hit the buffers, ensure a stable regime in Syria, and let people back in.
In principle, that's right (certainly with regard to aid - though like you, I don't know how much is already delivered like that). 'Ensuring' a stable (and non-threatening) regime in Syria is a bigger task though!
Is there any answer that doesn't start with As and end with sad though? The opportunity to do a deal is still there, our leaders just need to have the balls to tell Saudi Arabia where it can stick it's dirty oil money and tell BAE and its shareholders to like it or lump it if the Saudis decide not to buy our arms.
I did propose something along those lines way back in September:
@MaxPB I think there would be a lot less criticism of the Empire from the Left if it had actually been capitalistic. The Empire was nakedly Mercantilistic - shipping raw materials from colonial countries for manufacturing in the UK and fished goods back the other way denying the colonial countries the chance to develop economically (and thus compete with the UK).
Always the same when the weak trade with the strong. TTIP (and the others) are the US' modern equivalent. Goodness only knows what China will be like when they get going.
You could end up with huge cities with vast swathes of foreign ownership of property while the native population pay sky high rents.
Nah, that would be just stupid. No-one would ever let that happen.
The rewriting of Scottish and British Empire history is an absolute hoot - more please!
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
It's just that Scotland failed utterly to do it before the Union. Who'd have thought it?
If Brexiters must take cues from Scotland's separatists, they should realise that there were two SNP campaigns for independence. Alex Salmond, who dedicated many years to planing off the rough edges of his party, reverted to type and swaggered around the country stoking tensions and branding his opponents "a parcel of rogues". Unseemly as it was to see a statesman, the first First Minister worthy of the title, braying like a cybernat let out of the basement, Salmond's demagoguery appealed to angry middle-aged men.
That would have required time travel: the Empire predated Napoleon by some margin.
Partly, yes. But the explosion wasn't really until the 19th Century.
The trading bits predated the 19th century: North America, the Caribbean, India. The African expansion came later but the reasons there were more strategic / egotistic than mercantile.
The Empire was partly created out of necessity, Britain needed to trade after being frozen out Europe by Napoleon's continental system, a fact which has a certain parallel for today, perhaps.
OK folks, quick precis.
* England (let's start there) in medieval times was a monarchy: kings ruled by appointing local strongmen (lords, barons) to administer land in return for tax. * This system can be scaled up quickly: king provides external security, local strongmen provide tax, everybody (except the peasants!) are happy. * This system was successfully exported to the near neighbourhood, albeit against the consent of the occupied: Ireland, for example * As shipping technology developed, suddenly there was a lot more land that could be administered in the same way and the system started encompassing many lands. Those lands over the water were called "colonies" * Then came overstretch: the king could no longer provide security and the strongmen started to wonder why pay tax at all. So places such as the Thirteen Colones broke away violently * The kings functionnaries (by now the civil service) frantically worked to find a solution to overstretch, and came up with the Dominion: land would be given self-government in return for loyalty during warfare and allegiance to the king (OK, queen) * It worked brilliantly: huge parcels of land were gathered up and places such as "Canada" and "Australia" came into existence. * This would have worked beautifully but warfare tech meant that even this distributed empire was vulnerable and World Wars I & II (and some injudicious racism) meant that the model could not be rolled out to Ireland and India. * Denied self-government, Ireland and India broke away violently again and the UK could no longer prevent the other colonies from doing likewise. * The Empire retreated into itself and brooded...
It's nothing to do with manifest destiny, continental system, national character or any other psychobabble. Empires are what you get when you marry monarchies, warfare and transport.
@MaxPB I think there would be a lot less criticism of the Empire from the Left if it had actually been capitalistic. The Empire was nakedly Mercantilistic - shipping raw materials from colonial countries for manufacturing in the UK and fished goods back the other way denying the colonial countries the chance to develop economically (and thus compete with the UK).
Always the same when the weak trade with the strong. TTIP (and the others) are the US' modern equivalent. Goodness only knows what China will be like when they get going.
You could end up with huge cities with vast swathes of foreign ownership of property while the native population pay sky high rents.
Nah, that would be just stupid. No-one would ever let that happen.
There's no reinvention needed, clearly both Scotland and rUk benefited in some ways from the Empire.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
For once you under-sell Scotland. It wasn't just the civil servants and administrators, it was the manufacturers and ship-builders in Scotland, as well as the engineers, and the dour accountants, and the doctors, and the missionaries, and the military men, who went all over the world. The British Empire was disproportionately an achievement of the Scottish part of the union.
I would put that all of that was entirely the result of the education system, it was the heart of everything which gave Scotland the advantage. Anyone can build a boat but an educated man builds a better boat, a lieutenant who's sergeant is literate and can do the paperwork free's the lieutenants time for lieutenanting, a doctor is only effective as an educated man from a fine university, otherwise, he's just a quack.
With oil prices so low the price of peace in Syria has never been this cheap. It will just take courage from our leaders to make the tough decisions. I don't envy the first western leader who proposes we make nice with the Russian/Iranian coalition, it is not an easy suggestion to make, I'm reminded of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog, but I just don't see any other solution. The alternative of a Saudi-backed Sunni overseer gives me both heebies and jeebies. I can't think of a single worse idea for the ME than more Saudi influence and power.
I think there would be a lot less criticism of the Empire from the Left if it had actually been capitalistic. The Empire was nakedly Mercantilistic - shipping raw materials from colonial countries for manufacturing in the UK and fished goods back the other way denying the colonial countries the chance to develop economically (and thus compete with the UK).
Even after all these years I keep using the words "capitalist" and "mercantilist" as if they're synonyms. Then somebody cleverer than me points out that they are not. Good reminder, thank you.
It's not often I get to display that nugget of knowledge so I will always leap at the chance when given .
It's a very important distinction as well when it comes to discussing the Empire as it is very much a failure to apply capitalistic values that planted the seed of the inevitable end of the Empire.
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign doesn't even enjoy much support among 18-24 year olds.
Interesting the difference in attitudes to Empire between Scotland and the rest of the UK - considering Scots were often beneficiaries of Empire....
Empire good thing (Net): +24 / -4 Britain should be proud of colonial record (net): +23 / -2
Perhaps the Scots with 'get up and go' 'got up and went'......
Over my life time I have perceived a shift in attitude (unscientific, just based on my gut feeling of how people in Scotland talk) to the Scottish contribution to Empire - much as there has been a radical shift in attitude to Bonny Prince Charlie in the last 40 years, he has gone from hero to basically villainous chancer in general Scottish public perception.
With Empire there has been shift of being proud of contributing the engineers to build and the administrators to run the Empire to feeling the Scots rural poor were exploited to provide the soldiers and that the administration was not the prudent, clerical, managerial Scottish stereotype but the 'dirty' work of the oppression of the colonial population.
I feel (again not scientific) many have developed amnesia (it isn't in living memory but you know what I mean) and have transitioned from seeing Scotland as a contributor to and beneficiary of the Empire, to seeing Scotland as a downtrodden outpost of it. Easily disproved historically, but we're dealing with emotions not fact.
Scotland pioneered universal education and was streets ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of public education for nearly two centuries. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Scotland could not have developed a successful trading economy much in the way that the Netherlands or Denmark did.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money, instead of 70% or more of it being drained down to feed London (as evidenced from the early 20th century UK accounts).
The Netherlands developed its trading economy in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Scotland was an independent country. What was stopping the Scots then?
If you look at the territorial map of Syria now, it seems obvious that the Kurds will establish at least an autonomous region in the North of Syria - a full state would seem to be the simplest solution. I don't think Assad likes the idea, but he has little choice, and at least it will mean a buffer state between Syria and Turkey.
The Netherlands developed its trading economy in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Scotland was an independent country. What was stopping the Scots then?
Scotland tried. And as a result begged England for a bung.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
I need to go back from lunch so cannot continue. But saying the Empire caused the rise of the US is like saying Ike Turner caused Tina Turner's success.
I would put that all of that was entirely the result of the education system, it was the heart of everything which gave Scotland the advantage. Anyone can build a boat but an educated man builds a better boat, a lieutenant who's sergeant is literate and can do the paperwork free's the lieutenants time for lieutenanting, a doctor is only effective as an educated man from a fine university, otherwise, he's just a quack.
The education system was part of it, certainly, and Soctland has a glorious history in terms of its universities and medical schools. But I expect that the old Scottish Protestant virtues of hard work, thrift, and self-reliance were also key.
Virtues which alas seem to have been somewhat mislaid in modern Scotland, which seems to have retreated into portraying itself as a helpless victim.
As ever only a few benefited , the majority were just used. Unionist scoundrels.
That was the era. Was Scotland not going to exploit Central America if the Darien venture had succeeded? Come now.
Darien was not a colony, it was a trade route, and it was both eminently sensible but such a good idea that it is the backbone of world trade even today.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
You are missing a few, err, key facts in this statement.
Comments
Yes which is in line with the victim mentality and fake Scottish history agenda the SNP have pushed.
I always look at it from an Indian perspective (naturally). The Empire achieved great things in India, but it came at a terrible price. Whether that price was one worth paying is what the debate is about. India would not be the same country it is today if the Dutch and then the British had never arrived. The secularisation of India would also never have happened and I think Hinduism being as it is, women's rights would be in a very bad place in India today, much worse than it is at the moment.
But what is specifically 'bigoted' about it ?
Big sea change. For Labour's sake I'm glad to see it.
The rest of most post stands though. His track record when talking about Turkey is exceptionally poor and would be funny if I didn't suspect he believed it.
And given your track record I would have thought you would have tried to learn something about the situation.
Take the 12/1 on Exeter to beat Liverpool tomorrow night. Klopp's confirmed the side will be similar to the first match, which means Benteke up front, and we can't score in a brothel.
Plus I'm going up to Anfield as well, and Liverpool's record in recent times when I've been at a match is dire.
William Hill and Bet365 offer the best odds by the looks of it.
Is Michael Jackson next?
I think the latent hostility to the Empire tends to be from the left, it was a capitalistic and trade oriented achievement. It brought capitalism to countless countries across the world and made the US the economic super-power it is today.
I always look at it from an Indian perspective (naturally). The Empire achieved great things in India, but it came at a terrible price. Whether that price was one worth paying is what the debate is about. India would not be the same country it is today if the Dutch and then the British had never arrived. The secularisation of India would also never have happened and I think Hinduism being as it is, women's rights would be in a very bad place in India today, much worse than it is at the moment.
India would not be a country and what would the BJP be then?
The left dwells on the Empire's iniquities and cruelties, the right on its glories and triumphs. It's very political. Niall Ferguson's book about it is the best short guide I have read.
The Bowie fest was ridiculous.
Yes, they are probably negatively correlated, in any case. It would be quite bizarre, wouldn't it, to find both PM and LOTO top of the hit parade with the public, or simultaneously the pits?
The historical record suggests changing PM provides a makeover for the incumbent party, and a boost in popularity.
Eden, snap election leading to landslide
Macmillan, landslide, after the humiliation of Suez
Douglas-Home, almost won, after the Tories were written off.
Callaghan, could have won in 1978.
Major, won, after the Tories were written off.
Brown, dithered in 2007, to his doom...
My hostility towards Islam is pretty obvious, I don't try to hide it. Erdogan is Islamifying Turkey and trying to bring down secular regimes in his locality. He is turning a blind eye to ISIS and is allied to the other major Sunni state, Saudi Arabia, which actively encouraged ISIS and funded them when they were a "Sunni militant group" in Iraq. To our shame we are allied to Saudi Arabia as well, but that is for a different discussion.
It is disappointing when it has become difficult to tell which country has the more moderate and modernising leadership wrt to Iran and Turkey. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran there was never a debate, but today with Rouhani in place, the younger Khomeini looking likely to become the new supreme leader (another major reformist) vs Erdogan slowly but surely Islamifying Turkey they will cross over in the next 3-7 years.
You can stay in denial that Erdogan is a detestable Islamist radical, that's really up to you.
I always look at it from an Indian perspective (naturally). The Empire achieved great things in India, but it came at a terrible price. Whether that price was one worth paying is what the debate is about. India would not be the same country it is today if the Dutch and then the British had never arrived. The secularisation of India would also never have happened and I think Hinduism being as it is, women's rights would be in a very bad place in India today, much worse than it is at the moment.
India would not be a country and what would the BJP be then?
The left dwells on the Empire's iniquities and cruelties, the right on its glories and triumphs. It's very political. Niall Ferguson's book about it is the best short guide I have read.
I don't know who wrote it but I would definitely disagree with the statement that the Empire made the US what it is (unless you date it back to the actual establishment of the American colonies, which I suppose you could). US has always been based on a very strong domestic economy, hence some of the problems caused by their leadership of the world economy. Britain was forced to trade, hence the drive for worldwide stability.
Signing up to the rank and file of the British Army back in the time of empire was a completely different proposition to what it is now. It wasn't a way to see the world and earn a lump sum to set you up in life - it was basically a life term. you signed up to be an infantry man not out of patriotism but because your life in Britain was going to be really bloody awful.
The Highlands was already having its population slashed by the Clearances was then targeted for recruiting by the British Army to then suck away even more young men affecting the demographics further. The desperate crushing poverty of North Britain drove them into the arms of the Army.
Rather than using their labour and talent at home to make the highlands a better place to be they were used to win foreign lands for the lords and knights to rule in far off disease ridden places.
So it is undoubtedly true that Scotland in aggregate benefited from the fruits of the Empire it did so by the draining of it's labour, many of it's best engineers and administrators heading to elsewhere rather than using their talents at home and the mass of soldiery going overseas rather than labouring at the hearth to build a better future in Scotia. So it is not trivial or easy to say what was or was not best/
The Empire is complicated and supports many, many different interpretations.
But Arsenal do look good value at 7/4 for the title; I have a model showing them as very marginal favourites over Man City; from looking into it I suspect this is a remaining-schedule effect - Arsenal have 9 home games and 7 away ones whereas City have the opposite.
I said back in the summer that what Labour needed to regain its relevance was to let the bat-shit crazies have a go at driving the car, and for them to do exactly as they are doing now. That is the only way that a raft of voter-repellent policies - and the people that espouse them - could be given their moment in the sun.
Under a magnifying glass.
Only then can these folk be told once and for all to STFU.
The Loyalist halfwits are screaming for eye-watering taxes while providing no state services to those paying the bulk of those taxes. How did PB become infested with these hardline Marxist/Leninists?
Alistair Jamieson
Get the look! This week, the "Owen Jones" https://t.co/QHdU8H4ZDl
Again, I ask you to re-read your post. It's ridiculous and turns a blind eye to both the situation Turkey finds itself in, and the local situation.
As I've said, I'm no fan of Erdogan. But that does not mean I have to agree with your rantings against him.
In the longer term, recognise that the rebellion in Syria has hit the buffers, ensure a stable regime in Syria, and let people back in.
Generally speaking, do you think the British Empire was
UK
43% A good thing
19% A bad thing
25% Neither a good nor bad thing
13% DK
=+24% NET
Scotland
30% A good thing
34% A bad thing
26% Neither a good nor bad thing
11% DK
=-4% NET
—
UK
Do you think Britain’s history of colonialism is…
44% Part of our history that we should proud happened
21% Part of our history that we should regret happening
23% Neither
13% DK
=+23% NET
Scotland
Do you think Britain’s history of colonialism is…
34% Part of our history that we should proud happened
36% Part of our history that we should regret happening
18% Neither
11% DK
=-2% NET
I think there would be a lot less criticism of the Empire from the Left if it had actually been capitalistic. The Empire was nakedly Mercantilistic - shipping raw materials from colonial countries for manufacturing in the UK and fished goods back the other way denying the colonial countries the chance to develop economically (and thus compete with the UK).
No one bar the lowest information tribal voter is in this corner. The sort I heard on R5 saying they'd no idea who EdM was just before GE
What is happening in Syria is a symptom of the Sunni/Shia civil war, we have, erroneously IMO, backed the wrong side. Those refugees in Turkey may need help now, but unless we solve the long term issue in the ME they have nowhere to go, especially if Germany finally decides to shut up shop.
We can still direct our aid agencies directly to the camps in Turkey and make them acceptable in the short term (the same is true for Lebanon and Jordan btw).
So there you have it, make nice with the Assad regime and stabilise Syria. No other solution is available. This idea that we can back "moderate" rebels against ISIS who will then go and topple Assad without leaving a massive power vacuum for ISIS to fill is beyond a joke. There is only one credible party in the Syrian war we can do a deal with, we may not like it, but it doesn't change the facts. It is a ridiculous argument made by stupid people.
Without being in the Empire, Scotland would still have gotten rich but have actually, you know, kept the money, instead of 70% or more of it being drained down to feed London (as evidenced from the early 20th century UK accounts).
And worse, we can see Wales and Norway. The glaring examples on our very doorstep. One is what Scotland will become under British rule, a backward, bankrupt hellhole, the other what Scotland would have been without generations of loss (of money, of people, of resources) to feed the London machine.
What a surprise.
Is it fair to say that in your eyes, Erdogan is worse than Assad?
Please go back to telling us how "Scotland can't flood"...
As a welshman, and a fierce critic of the government in Wales and the attitudes of the country to boot, I respectively suggest you go f8ck yourself.
Assad was the cause of the problems. His regime have murdered more people than ISIS. His use of chemical weapons should put him well beyond the pail of civilisation.
Putting him back in the medium- and long-term would be a disaster for Syria and region.
That a smart guy like you can't deal with that is puzzling, but it does put your hatred of Erdogan into context.
In Feb we have Man City away then Arsenal away. If Leicester come out of those with points then I wouldn't rule out winning the league. We then have a good run until the last 3 games which are a pretty tough run in.
2 very good signings this window, but a further striker needed.
Partly, yes. But the explosion wasn't really until the 19th Century.
If you think Leicester are still being under-rated, backing them in games such as the Stoke one is probably the more sensible way to go. Though not as much fun, of course.
But the rub for rUK is that there was nothing stopping Scotland from developing WITHOUT the Empire, yet there is absolutely no possible way that the Empire could have developed without the education civil servant class it could only find in Scotland's unique system of Universal Public Education.
The cause of the problems was us filling the heads of naive ME/Arab students that they could achieve a lasting democratic settlement after the Arab Spring uprising in Syria. We encouraged that folly. Obviously since then things have moved on.
So you are saying that Assad is worse than ISIS? I'll let other people draw their own conclusions on that.
Tories are supplicants.
I would say that 16/1 is not bad value, if I hadn't got a pound each way at 3000/1 in August!
As ever, it is the peaceful civilians who get it in the neck from both sides. It is the civilians, rather than the politicians, we should be thinking of.
They should have got a homeland post WW1. But the Kurds were then, and are now, fairly split (it took them a few years even to merge the command of the various Peshmergas, and that task is allegedly incomplete). I'm fairly certain that even a putative Kurdistan combining Kurdish regions in Syria and Iraq would fail.
Basically: the Kurds are not a homogeneous grouping. Syrian Kurds might have more in common with Syrians than Iraqi Kurds, and vice versa.
As I've mentioned before, my route forward would be to create a semi-autonomous Kurdish region in Syria, as there is in Iraq. Then in a few years let them choose if they want to join together or remain as nominal parts of their states.
Turkey won't like it, but they can probably be persuaded.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/09/05/syria-a-call-to-alms/
Nah, that would be just stupid. No-one would ever let that happen.
The whole anti colonialist view perplexes me.
* England (let's start there) in medieval times was a monarchy: kings ruled by appointing local strongmen (lords, barons) to administer land in return for tax.
* This system can be scaled up quickly: king provides external security, local strongmen provide tax, everybody (except the peasants!) are happy.
* This system was successfully exported to the near neighbourhood, albeit against the consent of the occupied: Ireland, for example
* As shipping technology developed, suddenly there was a lot more land that could be administered in the same way and the system started encompassing many lands. Those lands over the water were called "colonies"
* Then came overstretch: the king could no longer provide security and the strongmen started to wonder why pay tax at all. So places such as the Thirteen Colones broke away violently
* The kings functionnaries (by now the civil service) frantically worked to find a solution to overstretch, and came up with the Dominion: land would be given self-government in return for loyalty during warfare and allegiance to the king (OK, queen)
* It worked brilliantly: huge parcels of land were gathered up and places such as "Canada" and "Australia" came into existence.
* This would have worked beautifully but warfare tech meant that even this distributed empire was vulnerable and World Wars I & II (and some injudicious racism) meant that the model could not be rolled out to Ireland and India.
* Denied self-government, Ireland and India broke away violently again and the UK could no longer prevent the other colonies from doing likewise.
* The Empire retreated into itself and brooded...
It's nothing to do with manifest destiny, continental system, national character or any other psychobabble. Empires are what you get when you marry monarchies, warfare and transport.
Nah, that would be just stupid. No-one would ever let that happen. I would put that all of that was entirely the result of the education system, it was the heart of everything which gave Scotland the advantage. Anyone can build a boat but an educated man builds a better boat, a lieutenant who's sergeant is literate and can do the paperwork free's the lieutenants time for lieutenanting, a doctor is only effective as an educated man from a fine university, otherwise, he's just a quack.
It's a very important distinction as well when it comes to discussing the Empire as it is very much a failure to apply capitalistic values that planted the seed of the inevitable end of the Empire.
If you look at the territorial map of Syria now, it seems obvious that the Kurds will establish at least an autonomous region in the North of Syria - a full state would seem to be the simplest solution. I don't think Assad likes the idea, but he has little choice, and at least it will mean a buffer state between Syria and Turkey.
There is a reasonable argument that, had the aristocracy (corrupted from the clan system to feudalism by English/French influence) had been left bankrupt and thrown aside, the burgeoning educated classes of Scotland would have been in natural position to start running things after Darien had the English not come along.
Without the Union, Darien could have had long term beneficial effects on Scotland as a whole by completely removing the aristocracy.
Virtues which alas seem to have been somewhat mislaid in modern Scotland, which seems to have retreated into portraying itself as a helpless victim.