Hereward

Great performance and epic cock up from Malan to miss out on his century!

Not in a world where Princess Anne won it!

Christie is great, so are some silent films. Writing off anything after either is silly.

If you are interested in NI during the Troubles, you should definitely read Adrian McKinty’s DI Duffy series. They are brilliant.

As Fragile Bird said, claiming a work is fiction is no defence whatsoever if you use real people, or people that the complainant can convincingly argue are intended to be you, or could be construed as being you. Unless you can prove that what you are portraying them as saying is something they actually said, or that it’s fair comment for comedic purposes. The only reason The Crown has got away with it so far is that the Royal Family traditionally don’t sue. With Harry and Meghan, that’s not going to fly.

You're right. It's only 30% of the subsidy to Scotland!

No, as in 1940 air superiority is a just a prerequisite. You need it and naval superiority.

While true in parts, that's a defeatist argument. If the only shot in your gun is a nuclear one, then no one is going to believe you'd use it.

I apologise for the quotes. It's not something I would accept in the analysis I review. However, I don't think I disagree is enough. It has been a theme on this board that the right ignores experts, and I'm just pointing out that the left does too, when it doesn't agree with them. On your second point, we disagree, though not fundamentally, unless you think that I don't care about hunger or critical public services. The fact that you are not aware of threats does not negate them, particularly as the means to counter them takes years to address. On your last point, we fundamentally disagree. Expectations of international law and cooperation are the result of a shared capability and dedication to enforce them, which we no longer have. Without that, you have post-1935 League of Nations..

Congratulations, you now appear as a footnote in the dictionary definition of virtue signalling.

This is misleading on many levels. We operate two aircraft carriers, the cost of which has crippled the navy, and which are of zero benefit to the defence of the UK; we are an aircraft carrier. They are only of use for foreign adventures, which I'm pretty sure the left has lost interest in post-Iraq, despite Sierra Leone, and we don't have the ships to protect. As the Russians have explicitly said, they're just two big targets costing a hypersonic missile each. As for Russia, I don't know what you are talking about. I have spent most of the last 25 years examining Russia capability, and nothing you said is true. They continue to upgrade their forces, declining economy or not, and continue to explicitly threaten to use them, and then actually use them. As a wise woman said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them. Lastly, the only way you could possibly think that there is a return to the status quo is if you don't know what is going on. Russia and Turkey could go to war at any moment over the Caucasus or Syria or Libya, the only thing saving us is how much Putin and Erdogan admire each other's sheer arseholiness. Russia is moving into Africa, so is China and Turkey. Turkey has effectively taken control of Libya, and is now trying to move into Chad and Mali. Egypt is on the verge of war with Turkey and Ethiopia, France and Turkey are at loggerheads. And that's just places where we have direct interests. Let's not even discuss China and the belt and road, Also, we don't need new tanks. Tanks are the new knights. They are utterly useless against an advanced enemy, as even the Armenian-Azeri conflict proves. What we need are UAVs, We currently lag so far behind Turkey, Saudi, the UAE and China that it's not even funny. Edit to what I think is your edit: If you think Biden's election is a return to the status quo, you are fooling yourself, or perhaps not, as Obama withdrew American influence from a great many places. Either way, American isolationism has accelerated and the US electorate has shown no desire whatsoever to reverse that. We, and everyone else allied to them, are largely on our own.

I am utterly unsurprised. Your refusal to accept the view of the "experts" is noted, though funny how the disdain for refusal to accept the expert view disappears when the experts don't align with your preconceptions. I disagree. What makes you think we are adequately defended, apart from wishful thing, and what is more, depending on others to provide the security we can't be bothered to provide ourselves? The comment of foreign-flagged ships makes no sense. The US has no merchant marine to speak of, are you therefore suggesting that it doesn't, or shouldn't, or has no interest in, or isn't allowed to protect the sea lanes? Picking up my earlier point, when you say that "International security and stability does more to protect import shipping, surely, than a big navy", aren't you just saying someone else's navy, in this case the utterly unreliable Americans, should provide the security gratis, and we can therefore just forget about it? I am restraining myself here on SNP policy n free-riding.

Sorry, Soylent. Understood.

As I know you know, sole reliance on nukes make using them more likely. Ignoring the defence of the realm is just an assumption that it exists, and always will, and we can all benefit from it, see 1920s. Plus, you have devolved powers on the issues you are discussing. Complain to the beloved Nicola.

Yes, of course we are. Which is why I opposed it. Do I really have to spend every post listing all the things I do not believe, cause that’s why I fucking left for 5 years?