Ads

It was in a speech from the weekend so I will have to search for it. Essentially about how the engagement in this election (well it is pretty important!) is like SA 1994 and the conflating idea that its because people are throwing off the shackles of English oppression. The bit from John Lewis is seperate from this.

They're expecting an 84% turn-out apparently.

Culpable homicide with a suspended sentence and a period of house arrest, is my bet.

Charlie Mayfield, Chair of John Lewis Partnership has said that product prices would increase as a consequence of a yes vote, as the logistical cost of bringing products north of the Wall to the Wildlings is high, but off-set by business elsewhere in the UK. When you couple this with your entire banking sector threatening to up sticks and leave you, with Salmond repeating his bluff to do an Argentina and wash his hands of debt, you'd be pretty concerned if you had a mortgage in Scotland right now. Apparently today they'll be talking about Defence. If any part of the Yes/SNP campaign policy highlights how little thought they have put into this then its defence. I posted elsewhere a titbit of the ridiculous number of contradictions, but a little one concerning the main boon of SNP policy; the nukes. They want to get rid of Trident within one parliament (which isn't feasible) and state there won't be a loss of jobs in the region. There are approximately 6000 currently employed around Faslane in maintaining the nuclear deterrent, which is set to rise to 8200 when Trident's replacement comes in. They plan to have a navy based there (which doesn't make any strategic sense) and it will be manned by 1000 personnel. I am no mathematician, but I am certain the 6000 and 8200 are bigger numbers than 1000, by a fairly significant margin.

Air-strikes to be extended into Syria.

Has anybody seen the comments of Salmond comparing this election to the post-apartheid elections in South Africa? What an utter moron.

It's been confirmed that RBS has been in talks with the BoE to move to London in the event of a yes vote.

He has been offered a new four year deal today.

£100k in Roman's back pocket. That might pay one of their players wages for a week! We may have sold out the full allocation, but I can understand why they didn't take it. Still, 2224 is a better following than 1400.

Its a bit annoying really, as if you're in the away scheme then you end up being in the paddock, which is very shallow and miss out of the better view from the upper tier. Although I hasten to add that I was stood on the back row of the upper tier in an FA Cup tie up there a few years back and couldn't see a thing without crouching down.

Tactics such as to bring the Irish Heskey on at 70 minutes?

Are you suggesting that we're the kind of country that would invade sovereign territory for oil? We wouldn't have to take sun-block with us this time. They can paint themselves blue and throw rocks at us from the shore if they like? I have read on the BBC today that Scotland's plan for defence involves the Royal Navy giving them a couple of Type 23 frigates and a squadron of Typhoons, together with enough kit to stock a couple of regiments. Why would the UK hand them free kit? In the event of a Yes vote I would be billing Scotland to relocate the nuclear deterrent and also billing them for the cost of defending their waters and air-space.

Its not like Scotland will have a navy to defend those waters...

Arming the Peshmerga is definitely in order, sending in a few MEU's to tackle IS head on and cripple their ability to manoeuvre is also necessary. But it gets tricky as they're dug in around al Raqqa. I am not in favour of a long counter insurgency operation and agree somewhat that the long term solution has to come from within. The Iraqi government made the same mistake Bremer did when he disbanded the Iraqi Army, when they stopped paying the Sunni Awakening Groups. Tooled up and out of work; the devil makes work for idle hands and makes easy recruiting for IS. Bringing Iran back in has to help, but the US hasn't got the solution to the never ending tit for tat between Sunni and Shia. The facts are though, that if we do nothing, IS will move into Southern Syria and shorten their supply line for working into Jordan. Not takin them head on mind, but whipping up enough beards and disaffected youths to create a big problem. Knocking off one of the kingdoms is their ultimate aim in my opinion. Dangerous times lie ahead.

You say £2000 per man, but you need to look at it realistically and answer this question; how do you sell Scottish government debt when you've just welched on your own share of UK national debt? Of all the bluffs, Salmond having Scotland do an Argentina is the biggest, unless he really is that stupid.

Don't mix up your failure to understand with me being confused. The currency union is on the cards, trust me. Ask (Nobel Prize winning) economist Joe Stiglitz what's the best outcome for both parties and his answer is simple. Ask (Nobel Prize winning, and Scottish) economist Jim Mirrlees what's the best response if the UK doesn't permit currency union, and he says to walk away from their share of national debt. £100bn on the table here. Think the UK government will say it's "off the table" when you're talking about £2000 per man, woman and child? Would you be happy if your government made you pay £2000 to avoid a currency union with Scotland, Trent? Absolutely no chance of Scotland being EU members within 18 months of independence, eh? Put your money where you mouth is. What odds will you offer me? Somebody better tell the Gov. of the Bank of England then.

You should give it to whichever company can it do it best. Get as good value for the taxpayer as you can. As long as they're allies, doesn't matter whether it's US or UK or Swedish or whatever. Irish Navy buys its boats off the UK. Keeping £6 billion notes in house on a project like the new carriers is good for the UK as a whole. Technology, jobs and a shiny bit of kit at the end of it, government meddling aside. If Scotland go off on they're own, then they may as well build them in Virginia. Although VT Group have a couple of yards in Portsmouth. You can't just scale up the capacity to build large defence platforms overnight.

We might as well give the next £6 billion contract to Northrop Gruman to build carriers as give it to BAE to build ships in Scotland. They might come with cats and traps then.

They'd have to wave goodbye to the Clyde building billion pound war canoes for the Royal Navy.

No, Iraq has a Shia majority. IS essentially started life out as AQI 10 years ago and has had a powerbase, of varying sorts, in al-Anbar province, conveniently located across the border from The Kingom. The West didn't create the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, but it did provide conditions for it by removing Saddam who kept a lid on the sectarian tensions, albeit via brutal suppression. It’s a murky business. The Sunni insurgency spent a long time trying to kill Americans in Iraq, with Sunni's then brought onside in order the facilitate the US leaving Iraq*. The lack of post-war plan, the tolerance and facilitation of Shia focused sectarian governmental institutions, the administrative destruction of the Iraqi Army are all long term causes of the current IS problem. That and of course the size of the Jihad in Syria that has allowed IS to grow and form a base in al Raqqa, with those other regional actors in KSA dipping their beak to get at Iran and vice-versa all factored into it.

I thought Fox started yesterday? Either way, whether he has started or whether he is still choosing the wallpaper for the office, the story is utter toss.

So Tom Fox just starts his job, manages to open contract negotiations and then manages to have them stall within a matter of hours? Ok Daily Star, if you say so.

IS have a well defined religious and political outlook. Its been stated in this thread time and again. They idea that they're a phantom bogeyman is nonsense. The fact some of what they believe is historically contradictory is neither here nor there. In respect of Chechnya, lines of supply and Turkey/Iran being in the way suggest that is a no go. Southern Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon are where IS may logical turn their insurgency and more conventional means of conquest to next. To paraphrase old Bill; It's logistics stupid (and demographics, I.e. compliant Arab Sunnis).

I'd be more worried about their ability to export oil than how much backing they're picking up in Saudi mosques.

Its trippy enough that you have US and Iranian air providing CAS at the moment to Pesh forces, mixed with Shia militia and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps [not directly in the case of later from the US], if you then put IDF on the deck fighting on the same side? Nutty. It won't happen mind. We may see some IDF response if al-Nursa doing anything daft on the Golan Heights.