RayC

You're kidding, right? Scousers, Geordies, Londoners, West Country, East England, Northern Ireland, Black Country, Yorkies, different types of Scottish brogue, Mancs to name a few. In London, I heard all of those accents and more in the past month or so.

You forgot the Germans. They have no sense of humour. And while we're at it, the Dutch: each and every one of them is tight. The French? All arrogant. Italians? All lazy except my mate, Mario; he's alright.

The lyrics to many of Christine's songs look overly simple and syrupy on paper, but when set to music and with the addition of her lovely singing voice, they have a poignancy. Confession time: As a teenager in my part of London in 1977, it wasn't "cool" to admit to liking 'Rumours' among my peer group. However, I'm pretty sure that most of us had a copy of it hidden away at the time. RIP, Christine.

I was wondering that myself. Guess that we'll never know as Keith won't see our comments ????????

Forced to resign@83. So sad. A promising career cut short.

I'll make a diary note for February 2030: Brexit benefits materialise.

Why would it be in the UK's interest to see an independent Scotland's economy left in tatters? The only reason would be vindictiveness. An independent Scotland would not sever economic links with the remainder of the UK overnight. It would be in both parties' interests to make the divorce proceed as smoothly as possible. I imagine that there would have to be a transition period similar to when the UK left the EU. One thinks for sure: An independent Scottish government can't use any transition period less effectively than the UK government did during the Brexit negotiations. Imo rejoining the EU is sole justification for holding a second referendum so soon after the first one. Not withstanding that, it's a ridiculous question: Why do 27 other sovereign nations remain in the EU? Because their governments perceive it to be in their national interests. Presumably, that is why an independent Scotland would wish to join. No more so than England remaining in the United Kingdom.

That is a lot better than most football punditry.

No reason why an independent Scotland should not be able to apply for EU membership. Actual admission to the EU could occur after 3 years if the Scottish government manages the debt effectively. EU Debt rule: a country is compliant if the debt-to-GDP ratio is below 60% of GDP or if the excess above 60% of GDP has been declining by 1/20 on average over the past three years.

The SNP has a mandate to seek a referendum not to hold one. Whether morally justified or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that it does not have the legal right to hold one. Having said that imo Brexit was such a fundamental change - and Scotland was so clearly against it - that a second referendum is justified. However, if this is the justification for a second referendum, then the question posed has to be a conjunction e.g. Do you want Scotland to leave AND seek membership of the EU? I disagree completely. Referendums have implications not just for the party instigating the divorce (Scotland) but also for the party being divorced (the rest of the UK). We need not look any further than Brexit for proof of this As Brexit has shown, uncertainty is damaging and negotiations can be torturous and time-consuming. The UK government should not be distracted from the business of governing the UK as a whole by having this uncertainty almost permanently hanging over it. Westminster should not be beholden to Holyrood. Imo in normal circumstances, the results of referendums need to have an extended period of validity: 'Once in a generation' e.g. every 20 years seems reasonable to me. If 'Leave' prevails, this should allow the newly independent Scotland enough time to implement and measure the effects of any necessary changes. If the vote is 'Stay', then it gives Scottish unionists a period of stability. A 20-year gap between referendums would allow Westminster to govern the UK as a whole - whether that includes Scotland or not - without the threat of distraction.

Can't see any reason why an independent Scotland wouldn't be successful in an application for EU membership. "Any country that satisfies the conditions for membership can apply. These conditions are known as the 'Copenhagen criteria' and include a stable democracy and the rule of law, a functioning market economy and the acceptance of all EU legislation, including of the euro." https://european-union.europa.eu › ... Joining the EU - European Union It makes you wonder how 27 other nations plus - I think - 5 candidate countries can be so gullible given how evil the EU is.

Couple of good - albeit long and dry articles - about the economic effects of devolution and independence: https://www.economicsobservatory.com/how-might-scottish-independence-affect-the-costs-of-international-trade https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/scotlands-contribution-to-the-uks-economy-wellbeing-and-quality-of-life/

Flags or no flags, my comment remains the same.

Guns and alcohol: What could possibly go wrong?

I can't understand the need for alcohol at ice hockey? The warming effect is superficial and doesn't last. If the aim is to numb the brain, surely watching the match itself does that more effectively?

My first paragraph is a fact. Any EU treaty requires unanimous support. The UK could have vetoed the Maastricht Treaty. The remainder of my post is opinion as is your post.

Not so. If Thatcher had refused to sign, there would have been no Treaty; she could have vetoed it Of course, she would have been under enormous pressure to sign - but Thatcher would have wanted concessions for doing so. The likelihood is that the Maastricht Treaty would have looked been delayed, had opt-outs for the UK and looked different to what it did.

No. Tune into next week's exciting episode.

And I'll repeat my challenge. What evidence do you have to dispute the findings of these surveys (other than your subjective bias)? I'm not familiar with the Polish public but I imagine that the pollsters are? Presumably, these surveys were conducted in Polish? I'd never heard of him either until two hours ago. I found it difficult to understand what points he was trying to make. He stated that the EU parliament had failed its' citizens but gave no evidence to support that view. He then said that the European parliament was undemocratic because a MEP representing a French region wasn't subject to a vote by the Polish electorate: Maybe there is a better system to elect MEPs but he didn't offer an alternative. I found the whole thing a bit bizarre.

Yes, quite a majority of the Polish public seem to be in favour of EU membership. You don't like the conclusion therefore you introduce the concept of survey bias without a shred of evidence to support this view. On the one hand, you dismiss 'The Consersation' because it is based in Australia, on the other hand, you dismiss a European academic specialising in East European politics? It appears that Mr. Legutko is the only source which you trust.

Would Thatcher have pulled the UK out of the EU, or would she have fought for her beliefs inside the bloc? Both sides can make a case. The only fact is that we will never know the answer.

Why have you reached that conclusion?

That is just 4 minutes of empty rhetoric which had no argument to support his premise. On second thoughts, maybe he does have a point: The European parliament probably is failing its' citizens if he is an indication of the calibre of the MPs.

Of course, silly me, it's yet another MSM conspiracy. Yes, an article from a year ago, quoting a survey from 2 years ago. Has Polish public opinion changed that much since then? So because 'The Conversation' is based in Australia, any articles about Europe therefore lack validity? Oh yes, btw I guess that you didn't notice the name of the author and/or check her background: An academic with a speciality in East European politics.

Bit more nuanced than that. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatcher-the-critical-architect-of-european-integration/ Unless there's a medium on the job, I guess that we will never know.