aaid

No doubt Corbyn will lead on train timetables at PMQs today.

I suspect there is also more than just a suspicion that Labour - or at least the leadership - want to let the clock run out and aren't doing much to either stop Brexit entirely or somehow mitigate the impact. What they'd prefer is to be out of the EU but it be someone else's fault and tbf the way they've sat on the fence for the last 3 years on this would support that.

On your first point, the argument is take the opportunity now, when you have the chance rather than wait and see what happens and risk missing the opportunity. On your last point, I guess its all about getting to the best position to win and playing a longer game. I fully appreciate these seem to appear completely contradictory and in a way they are. The difference I'd say is that out of the available options, having a GE, while being something the SNP would welcome is a lot more desirable to Labour for lots of reasons, so the SNP can be a bit more gung-ho on that.

SNP's objectives are - in this order - 1. Independence for Scotland, 2. Remain in the EU. In the case of a second EU referendum, if the 2016 result is overturned then objective 2 is achieved. If it stays the same - and assuming Scotland votes to Remain as before - then it strengthens the arguments for a second Independence Referendum so moving towards the main objective. You can guarantee that as far as the SNP is concerned they would be framing any second EU referendum as a repeat of the 2016 result being taken as a mandate for IndyRef2.

Thinking about this, Its a bit of a win/win/win for the SNP here. What they seem to be proposing is that if Labour don't call the vote of No-Confidence then they - along with the LDs, PC & Greens - will table the vote. Parliamentary procedure though means that it has to then be moved by Labour before it can be put to the vote. There's three possible outcomes, all of which come out well for the SNP. If Labour don't move the motion then they will be accused of propping up the Tories and that will be used as very big stick to beat Scottish Labour with. If Labour moves the motion and it succeeds and results in a general election, then - based on all recent polling - the SNP are likely to increase their vote and number of MPs and could be in a stronger position to get concessions on holding IndyRef2. If the motion fails and the Tories limp on - winning the vote of NC - is a different matter from getting their deal through. That then bounces Labour into supporting a second Brexit referendum.

SNP trying to bounce Labour into calling a no-confidence vote today. Interesting to see how this turns out.

Statement from the PM to parliament at 3:30. Vote being pulled apparantly

She also misses the point that the ROI is self sufficient insofar as food is concerned and exports more than it imports. The U.K. On the other hand...

The problem is very simple. Any kind of border infrastructure - even something as inoffensive as number plate recognition cameras to track goods vehicles becomes a target for dissident republicans and unless you just let them be destroyed, you have to protect those in some way and then the people who are protecting them become targets and the whole thing escalates again. Unless you have some form of agreement that allows for the free movement of goods and people across that border then you have to have some form of border checks. For the EU, they are the ones who are concerned about the movement of goods from the UK into the ROI and then into the wider EU. Their - understandable - concern is that goods that don't meet EU standards don't find their way into the EU by the back door. The UK is less concerned about this. A problem for the UK though is movement of people. The Common travel area works because the UK and ROI are not in Schengen and the ROI has essentially matched the UK's immigration policy. That's meant that if you are for example, American, and want to work in the UK, if you apply for a UK or Irish visa they will both apply similar tests so there's little benefit in trying to cheat the system. However, the day after the UK leaves the EU -or at the end of the transition period , The ROI will immediately have a different immigration policy than the UK as EU nationals will still be able to travel freely to the ROI. This will mean that someone from say Romania could get on a flight to Dublin, get a bus to Belfast and then ferry over to GB and wouldn't be checked. How many people would do this isn't clear and of course people wouldn't be able to work legally however given that we know there is an issue in the UK with illegal immigration I'd suggest it would end up to be significant, especially in sectors where unscrupulous employers wouldn't be too averse to paying cash in hand and not looking too closely at passports. Funnily enough we don't hear to much about this, probably because from the Brexiteers perspective it's a bit of an inconvenient truth with respect to their anti-immigration rhetoric.

Yes, that is the whole point. The Good Friday agreement is a masterpiece of fudge and compromise as it allows people who want to be British - in the North - to be British and allows people who want to be Irish to be Irish in every practical sense. The only time in history when there has been any form of border checks or restrictions on the island of Ireland was during the Troubles.

It would need to be some size of a bus.

It's from Bishops Stortford which is right next to Stansted. I thought it was on the graphic but I must have picked that up somewhere else.

Early flight back up the road from Stansted for Blackford tomorrow

He's been at it again. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/06/tommy-robinson-threatened-with-legal-action-over-bully-video?CMP=twt_gu&__twitter_impression=true

It was more that people voted for him rather than him being selected as a candidate in the first place. Doesn't say much for the electorate of Aberdeen South IMHO

I can completely understand how in the wake of the Tory "Ruth Davidson says No Surrender to Indy Ref2 " campaign in the snap 2017 campaign some unknown imbeciles like Kirsteen "Brexit's too difficult for me" Hair found themselves elected - and no doubt the same could be said with the SNP in 2015 - but there's no excuse with Ross Thomson as was an MSP at the time and had shown his imbecility on plenty of occasions in Holyrood.

Ross Thomson really is the gift that keeps on giving. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/1624720/aberdeen-mp-ross-thomson-tricked-by-underhanded-yet-blindingly-obvious-tv-prank/

The difference is that there wasn't a vote in parliament to compel the Scottish Government to publish. The only way there will be an IndyRef2 is if there is a pro-Indy majority in parliament, in which case its inconceivable that they would lose that vote. When it comes down to it, there isn't a pro-Brexit majority in Westminster which is why they lost the votes today. The Dominic Grieve amendment which was passed today is very important as that gives parliament the potential to cancel or delay Brexit.

Red Star Belgrade and Partizan Belgrade's stadiums are only 10 minutes walk apart. I'd like to see anyone try to suggest they merge.

If you can't understand why fans wouldn't support their team merging with a rival then I'm sorry but you don't understand anything about football.

In worldwide football, I'm guessing that no more than one or two percent of clubs ground share. The only high profile cases I can think of off the top of my head are the two Milan and the two Rome clubs. In both these cases none of the club's own the ground, they are owned by the local councils. Juventus used to play in the municipal stadium but have now moved back to their own ground. It's completely normal for clubs to own their own grounds.

Really difficult to choose between Leighton and Goram. For me, Leighton was better over a longer period and his record of keeping clean sheets in 50% of over 90 matches is exceptional. That said for me, at there peaks Goram was the better of the two albeit over a shorter period. My understanding of circumstances over Goram walking in out of the squad in 1998 aren't as you describe. Alan Hodgkinson was lobbying hard for Goram to start but Brown hadn't made that decision at the point. I understand that Goram had financial, contractual and family issues that he had to resolve and I think subsequent revelations around his chaotic private life backs that up. Lets not forget that Leighton also walked out on Scotland halfway through a double header after being slated for a performance at Tynecastle.

Martin. Chris McLaughlin on Reporting Scotland seemed to suggest earlier that Regan had signed this off before he left but clearly no-one else knew about it - or are at least prepared to admit to knowing about it.

I'd view that as a failure of politicians rather than the forces themselves. As you said, too often they had to stand by and watch atrocities committed because the politicians wouldn't allow them to intervene. I had more in my mind once the "peace deal" had been agreed. I went to Sarajevo in 1999 when we played there and it was under control of S-FOR. If they hadn't been there people would still be being slaughtered.

While in no means being perfect, I'd argue that in both cases things would have been a whole lot worse had the UN not intervened.