Twice .. Once at Uni (totally unrelated to my subject) and then I picked it up like an idiot in the middle of revision for my MSc (eventually forced myself to finish it in about 3 days).

I agree its hard to get into, but by the end you want it to go on and on.

Inaccurate, insecure, massively expensive.
(If the energy company says its free, ask them where their money comes from).

From:The Register[/url]

Can no-one, anywhere think of a better way to spend £11Bn over the next few years?

For those who don’t want to follow the link. They will cost £400+ each, and on average save £10 per year.

I look forward to the day when cars get an arsehole button (maybe with a * symbol?).
It would automatically decelerate based on the closeness of the impatient tailgating numpty in the car behind, hopefully making their head explode, and the world a better place.

We already have cars that can follow the traffic in front and keep distance automatically, so how hard can it be :O)

Has anyone else noticed that “the list” of ideas for things to do, seems to assume that your days alone will be at least 36 hours long and not require sleep?

Many Americans have unusual (for us) attitudes to guns. It seems nonsensical to us (or even most Americans?), but when they hear about people getting shot many feel inclined to do something “to protect themselves”.

At one level they might actually have a point. Even if guns were banned tomorrow for the law abiding how long would it be before “bad guys” ran out of bullets?

They also fear a “slippery slope”. In many European countries they banned automatic weapons, then semi automatic, then a few years later pretty much all guns (as in the UK). Therefore they will defend AR-15s now, despite the cost, to avoid having to defend pistols in a few years.

For whoever said that it sounded like a heavy machine gun, that seems unlikely. It sounded like an ak47 or similar firing a 100 round magazine (first bursts seemed to last about 10 seconds).

I recall in the US they tried to ban large capacity magazines after some of the shootings a few years ago, but that fell through because it “wouldn’t make any difference”.

They say you live and learn, but many people don’t. So sad.

sandwicheater,
Because its very good at other things.

Theres a fantastic Mythbusters where Adam Savage went up in one here I think

ransos,

You could’ve saved a lot of typing by saying that in the first place.

Thats just your opinion and doesn’t apply to me so I’m free to ignore it :O)

ransos
Yeah whatever 🙂

ransos
Sorry to disappoint but there’s no contradiction in anything that I’ve said.

The law is that stunning is required.

You can ignore that law if you have an exemption.

You seem to think that I’ve been describing religious slaughter as illegal, but have probably realised your error after rereading my posts searching for evidence to confirm your assumptions.

Slaughter without stunning it is immoral and it should be illegal for everyone, no matter the strength or source of their opinions.

Obscuring that fact with fluff about race, religion and prejudice is self defeating and dishonest.

The discussion over whether the law could be improved or enforced better is also a red herring. The law could be improved and enforced better, but thats separate discussion from whether religious people should be allowed to ignore it.

To repeat myself:

Should religious people be able to ignore some laws (put in place, however imperfectly, to aid animal welfare) just because they are religious?

No.

ransos

From the RSPCA website

In the UK, Jewish and Muslim communities are exempt from legal requirements to stun animals before slaughter. Shechita (Jewish) and Halal (Muslim) slaughter methods involve cutting the animal’s throat with a very sharp knife, often without pre-stunning. There are different interpretations of the religious laws on slaughter within both communities.

Based on that I don’t think its controversial that there is a legal requirment for stunning and that they can ignore it?

I didn’t suggest that this was currently illegal (theres an exemption), I just think the exemption should be removed and that it should be illegal.

(Edit: OR as you might put it “They are”)

ransos

What laws are being broken? And is your aunt called Sally?

I’m not sure I’ve said anything controversial?

The laws are there to try to ensure animal welfare.
There are religious exceptions (exemptions?) to those laws.

I don’t think there should be.

Why is that a problem?

I think that we should decide using the best evidence most humane way to carry out slaughter and implement it regardless of personal beliefs.

I don’t understand the aunt sally reference, unless you think I’m explaining it simply, which is good because I was trying to, thank you.

Please feel free to let me know why I’m wrong.

Its easy.

Should religious people be able to ignore some laws (put in place, however imperfectly, to aid animal welfare) just because they are religious?

No.

Is “you clearly don’t like religious people” a valid counterargument to this proposition?

Also no.

Well that didn’t take long.
I realise that this can be (and definitely is round here) a controversial topic, but the issue should begin and end with animal welfare.
Its not a question of “is all slaughter bad” but “should religious people be allowed legal exemption from following animal welfare laws”.

You can certainly complain that all animal slaughter is barbaric or cruel, and campaign for legislation and welfare to be improved, but what is the point of that while exemptions for religious reasons continue to exist?

You can also claim that this is more about tribal prejudice than animal welfare. But please consider the possibility that some people are capable of seeing a need to treat animals more humanely (as defined in law) without having any particular concern over the creed, racial heritage, height, weight, colour (etc.) of the perpetrator.

Never go full STW.

edit PS .. I have been to an abattoir, it was not as described above, I left feeling hungry.
But not for tripe. Never tripe. I’ve seen things.

Molgrips

SOME religious people. Not all religious people are very bright. I don’t think those ideas are endorsed by all believers.

Praying to god for help with your everyday life is actually a pretty mainstream idea in most christian faiths.

Its only when you point out the moral absurdity of ‘gods’ apparent value system (as I did above) that this becomes something that some claim isn’t “endorsed by most believers”.

I think the root of the problem is that “god” will remain ill defined as long as it helps religious people defend the concept.

He will at various times be everything between:
1. An all powerful being (who incidentally is portrayed as a man with a beard by his followers) who created the universe and knows everything and loves us, and will interfere in the world to make good things happen for us in our everyday lives (and will torture us for an infinite amount of time unless we love him back).
2. An unknowable, benign, ineffable thing that exists somewhere, for no definable reason and with no discernable effect on the physical world, and moves in ‘mysterious’ ways beyond our understanding.

Why don’t believers pick a place on the continuum, and tell us what they actually believe in?

They want a god type (1) who is powerful and can control the natural world, but then want to use god type (2) to absolve him of responsibility when nature (by storm, earthquake, drought or disease) kills the innocent.

So choose.

Rather than criticise atheists for their ‘wrong’ image of god, tell us what he actually is?

I await your clear, concise, internally consistent, morally unassailable creations.

Otherwise I fear it may be “special pleading olympics” all the way down.

There seems to be a thrust on this thread to suggest that the lack of evidence is irrelevant compared to the rudeness of those who would suggest that there is a lack of evidence.

Its like the special pleading olympics.

In my own experience (of the claims of religious people) God can:
a) interfere in everyday traffic flow to provide parking spaces for the faithful [who ask for his help],
b) fail to stop infants dying of painful diseases, [who ask for his help].

If you can bring those ideas together in your head and think “seems about the right way for a pan dimensional superbeing with infinite power to behave” then it almost looks like you’re proposing and defending a massively wooly proposition that seems intelligently designed to change shape and form (and effect) to counter any argument.

Personally I subscribe to the view that you (generally) can’t reason someone out of a view that they didn’t reason themselves into (can’t remember who said it).

If only religion was benign, and didn’t have such a negative effect on society (and the lives of both its proponents and its detractors) I’d prefer to ignore the whole philosophically and morally bankrupt business.

nickc .. re: right wing anthropology:
No idea about “the 10000 year explosion”, but “Guns Germs and Steel” is hardly right wing.
It’s basically an argument against racial determinism as an explanation for how white Europeans took over the world. Suggesting that environment and chance played the major role in e.g. Europe colonising the americas as opposed to the other way around.

That notion, which may be right or wrong in detail (and which rejects the otherwise popular “superiority of the white race” as an explanation) doesn’t strike me as a particularly right wing idea.

Accusing ideas of being right wing or left wing (rather than a good or bad explanation of the available evidence) seems to be popular sport here though. Easily accepted slur, no evidence required.

It could almost be mistaken for a shorthand way to poke peoples preconceived biases and let them know how to feel about a subject, book or idea without going to the trouble of thinking for themselves first.

Slightly relevant Oatmeal Cartoon.

SNP planning meeting:

Brexit – didn’t work
‘Rainbow’ Tories accusations – didn’t work, people misunderstood and voted tory.
“rape clause” – seen through, maybe we should have got false offended a few years ago when the legislation was first proposed?
Whats left? – We haven’t plumbed the divisive depths of sectarianism yet?

Why don’t we accuse the other side of being a bunch of big orangemen while ignoring the pro IRA people we have as SNP politicians?

This can only end well! Run with it!

lenovo p2 £200 from “3”
5000mA battery = min 2 days use before charging (my old S4 used to need charging at about lunchtime with a brand new battery).
EDIT .. other properties and statistics are available, but the battery trumps them all 🙂

For all of the talk about mandates and the majorities that SNP almost achieved in Holyrood and what first past the post gave them in Westminster, theres no denying that the both the SNP and the Greens have blown it with a percentage of their voters (how many remains to be seen).

Both (SNP and Green) said strong words about the pressure for a referendum coming from the “people” rather than from “party”.

That made it safe for people who like the SNP “all things to all men” politics, but don’t want independence, to vote for them, and for the green inclined non-independence junkies to vote for them.

But now, after the elections when there is _no_ pressure for independence from the people in Scotland, they’ve decided that they know best anyway.

If you listen carefully Sturgeon has even started talking about the “will of the parliament” rather than the “will of the people” over the last few weeks, and that is possibly the most dangerous ground she could be on for the future of Scotland.

Its dangerous because Sturgeon and Harvie are wilfully fomenting enormous resentment from those who don’t want independence.

I agree with tj that theres a lack of real alternatives when it comes to voting for many people in Scotland. The libdems, labour and conservatives all have baggage for certain groups.

But now that everyone knows that a vote for the SNP or Greens = vote for neverendum, things might change.

Sadly, the change that might come is the practice of people voting to keep one side out of power rather than in favour of the policies of another, because of a single overriding issue.

Thats exactly whats meant by the “ulsterisation” of politics. (N.B. not talking about the violence here but the tribalism).

So, (IMO) thats where we are headed in Scotland, because Sturgeon can’t let it go in the face of the majority views of her own constituents.

And some people still think shes some sort of political genius?

tish and pishaw.

TomB
Sorry if I got you wrong, but it seemed that just saying “she didn’t die” to correct someone was a bit harsh in view of the life changing injuries she suffered.

binners,
I fully agree with that.

For me though, however nuanced and however much things changed in the end, I can’t help considering how people would feel if they Mr McGuinness shooting some crying kid through the back of the knees.

(There was a sliding scale of kneecapping by the way. Shooting back to front was considered the worst as it removed the kneecap permanently.)

The best thing you can say about him was that he stopped in the end.

binners,
My point isn’t that Tebbit is a nice bloke, just that your invective about Tebbit could be considered a bit extreme in a thread where people are largely being nice about Martin McGuinness.

Tom B
Info on Tebbits wife, from wikipedia;

Margaret Elizabeth Tebbit, Baroness Tebbit, née Daines, is a former nurse who was severely and permanently paralysed by the IRA’s 12 October 1984 bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton

Congratulations on your humanity.

Talks about talks had been going on for a long time in NI before 9/11, but there is an element of truth in the idea that the changing attitude of the American diaspora had an effect.

For example; the first WTC bombing happened in 1993, and changed many Americans attitudes to bombs going off now that they were seen as a local possibility.

The average knowledge of the average American about the troubles can probably be summed up by the fact that I know some UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) guys who drank copiously for free in some Irish American bars after telling people who they worked for, and not correcting the people that thought they were some sort of republican splinter group 🙂

Binners, Tebbit has more right to his opinion on this subject than most on here.

How you can say this about Tebbit and someone who agrees with him;

If you ever wanted to make sure nobody reads another word of whatever drivel you’re about to spew out, then that’s probably the best statement to start with. You clearly share the same level of willful ignorance and blind prejudice

In a thread where most people are talking about being forgiving towards Martin McGuinness is making my brain ache a bit.

seosamh77

bit daft for the tories to come out and completely reject the section 30 thing before it’s even been voted for in the Scottish Parliament.

Gives the SNP a very easy argument.

Maybe they think it’ll force the SNP to explain to the scottish people why they think its the right time? (even though the polls show a vast majority of scots saying “not now”).

EDIT
Even harder for the green party (ha!) to make their manifesto case for the surge in Scottish public opinion they said they were waiting for. There is clearly no surge in favour.

scotroutes

one way or the other.

Sensible.
Personally, thats why I always cross the road without looking, wearing my headphones and refusing to acknowledge traffic from either direction 🙂

epicyclo,
I guess independence would be one reason to vote SNP but its a relatively widely held opinion that the SNP were also concerned with improving the lives of the people of Scotland using the powers an money at their disposal.

The reason of the day for independence used to be “rich” but now we have deficit so it’s “brexit” but now shes back pedalling on reversing even that (to get votes for independence).

So have the tories on one side refusing to cost a no deal divorce from europe, and on the other the SNP who will say anything and ignore any reality to get their agenda.

A pox on all their houses.

Shes up to something all right.
Herald: First Minister Nicola Sturgeon may not offer to reverse Brexit in Scottish independence referendum, says Alex Salmond[/url]
That escalated quickly!
Good thing shes a principled politician with real values who sticks to her word.
Whats her “Priority” again .. oh Education?
Scotsman: School in Swinney’s constituency asks parents for maths help

Theres a lot of FUD* being cultivated (again) around the economics of independence.

There is certainly room for different perspectives on GERS deficit figures.

As I’ve stated, the GERS figures are estimates, but so are ALL such figures for all countries, even Greeces
(N.B. the size of the black economy in Greece after all the shennanigans might mean that the Greek economy is actually in a better state than it looks but the government can’t see the money?).

But [again] if there was a clear magic bullet to make iScotlands economic picture look similar or positive compared to the current UK situation, where is Nic and her megaphone?

She creates (by proxy) and accepts the accuracy of the GERS figures.
So, ask yourself. Is she corrupting the true picture? and Why?
If not, then why is the FUD on Twitter Facebook and in online forums necessary?

(*Fear Uncertainty and Doubt)

tjagain,
The scale of the economic pain would be different though, (no-ones suggesting that UK will become Greece) and we’re insulated to an extent from disastrous changes to the NHS etc. via Holyrood.

For me it’s not uncertainty 1 vs uncertainty 2, its uncertainty squared.

Out of the UK AND out of Europe would not be a comfort.

If I was a pragmatic nationalist I’d be in favour of keeping my feet dry on the UK, waiting to see if the boat sinks and stepping off just as it goes under.

seosamh77
a few pages from now, I’ll be boasting about the secret oil fields off Norfolk. 🙂

Lets agree to differ and have a look at the makeup and background of representatives if it expands again over the next few months/years.

For starters I’m guessing Michelle Thomson won’t be involved this time.

seosamh77.. is that project fear I hear? 🙂

If things are going to go bad and staying in the UK will lead to 15 Bn in cuts from Westminster, then the economic argument against indy goes away like tears in the rain.

That’s why it’ll keep coming.

If it stops. Maybe it would be time to call a referendum?

It is good that you’ve realised that 15bn cuts would be a very big bad thing tho’.

tjagain
I don’t think realise just how much top level planning goes into organising a ‘grass roots’ independence campaign 🙂

The ‘small pool’ argument is fair, but the representativeness of those groups (on all sides) for their particular constituency, should be looked at before they get treated as authoritative. Eg. during the EU ref we had organisations representing large numbers of UK businesses appearing opposite Dyson, and given equal time. Fair? Transparent?

EDIT For reference I have no problem referring to orgs like “the taxpayers alliance” etc. as a tory front, any more than “Business for Scotland” as an SNP front. The deciding factor for influence should be who pays your bills, how may people, businesses or employees do you represent?

Otherwise its just talkinf heads doing “triple-A” reporting.*

*Ask Any A’hole

tjagain
Yes absolutely, I guess you could say it’s an “anti SNP blog” I’d see it more as a blog with pretty well referenced facts about business and economics in Scotland (so maybe anti-snp by default?)

But the information there is referenced and the fact is that the founders had connections to the SNP, 6 of the 7 directors resigned after 2014 and three of them stood for office with the SNP later.

They were also registered as a pro indy group.

So maybe if you can reject my info as “anti snp” I can reject yours as pro?

In any case your “sell the family silver” economic strategy neglects to cover why no other country has tried that path out of economic trouble to that massive extent. (tho’ some have done it a bit)

Also assets are really only worth what someone will pay, and what’s the market like for 2nd hand frigates these days?

tjagain,
I don’t know if you had a look at that link I posted re: Business for Scotland yesterday.

Not trolling, the evidence suggests that they appear to have been set up specifically for the period of the referendum, and have a suspiciously large number of people going off to stand for office with the SNP immediately after. (Including Michelle Thomson of all people)

tjagain,
c’mon its not “supposed”.
It is an estimate, but so is pretty much every other economic measure that exists (including the ones that say Greece has a smaller deficit than Scotland).

As someone put it on twitter, it’s like saying
“Officer you can’t accuse me of speeding, as speed can only me estimated not measured exactly”. Try that and see how far you get.

In any case it’s not worth discussing unless you also have a reasonable explanation of why Nic hasn’t had her statisticians shot for bringing comfort to the enemy 🙂

To your other point (which I assume was joking?) I wonder why Greece didn’t just sell a load of assets (Parthenon?) to cover it for a few years. Maybe you should tell them about your plan?

tjagain,
Not defending May and/or brexit here (or anywhere).
My argument against indy is that 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Brexit is a massive faux pas for the UK, but the worst economic predictions of the brexit fallout don’t look anywhere as bad as iScotlands balance sheet.

Out of the UK, out of the EU, potential hard borders in every direction, and a massive deficit. [N.B. not saying that can’t be done]

Thats not the social democratic fantasy land that the SNP are selling, and again no-one has owned up to who will pay the price (beyond “it’ll be hard”). My guess for the people who will pay are the same people as always, the poor, the sick, the elderly.

If things go as badly with brexit as some suspect, and the UK becomes a right wingers wet dream, and the Scottish government can’t protect us from the fall out, then thats the time to become independent, and we’ll all come along singing.

Not now.

@thm
Day Job: Being first minister for Scotland
Concentrating on education, that sort of thing.
(I’m assuming here she gets turned back about having a vote, not kicked out yet)

On Topic, heres a gem of a headline from the ever reasonable National
Cat Boyd: Time to fight on our feet or we’ll die on our knees[/url]

Thats a glorious inclusive vision of loveliness right there.
Can’t imagine what the SNP would make of a headline like that in the “Yoon” press?

With the recent polls showing no appetite, and the post announcement polls apparently edging against, it’ll be interesting to see where the Greens stand on their manifesto:
from here.

The timing of the referendum should be determined by public appetite: Scotland should decide, when Scotland wants to decide.
In assessing public appetite for a second referendum we will respect new kinds of citizen-led initiatives – for example, a call for a referendum signed by up to 1 million people on the electoral register.

I must have missed that popular surge of feeling, anyone else?

I have a vain hope that maybe St Nic. is hoping that the majority of the people of Scotland have their wishes respected (at last), and tell her where to get off. Then she can relax a bit, take her eye off the independence ball and crack on with the day job?