Chris near Oxford

I was thinking of the pubs in the towns around me: Banbury, Abingdon, etc.

I feel sorry for the various 8 and 9 year olds who are now old enough to feel the agony of the World Cup. All this crap about England being 3-1 to win the world cup and Rooney being the best striker in the world is pretty devastating to a nine year old when the truth unravels in front of their eyes. I also feel sorry for the guys who genuinely support England through thick and thin: the sort of guy who has a season ticket for Scunthorpe or Arsenal and genuinely loves football, has a proper understanding of England's limitations and was entitled to a modicum of optimism before the tournament started. But as for the players and the bleary-eyed, red-shirted, carling-swigging yobs who support England every 4 years: no sympathy at all.

Have you tried Travelzoo?

There is no conflict, is there? Nationwide sponsored the (English) football league for years as well as Swindon, where their HQ was. As it doesn't affect the result of any game I can't see what the problem is.

Would it be funny if some rich bloke in Clydebank bought the shares, moved the club to Clydebank and renamed it Clydebank United?

Kebab

You seem to have a believe that poor people deserve to be poor and rich people deserve to be rich.

I know two Grimsby supporters: Annette and Rod.

Good point Luton should walk it, but their self-destruct button is never too far away. After that it will be a dogfight for the 4 play-off places.

I can't see Grimsby getting out of the Conference within 2 seasons. It's a damned hard league to get out of. Luton should walk it next year with strong challenges from York, Rushden, Wimbledon and possibly Mansfield, Kidderminster and Newport County. Grimsby will be lucky to make the play-offs.

I was just re-writing the paragraph. Anyway I think we all agree that not all the rich are industrious and ambitious, not all the industrious and ambitious are rich, not all the poor are ne'er-do-wells and lie-a-beds and not not all the ne'er-do-wells and lie-a-beds are poor. Indeed many of the industrious and ambitious are poor and many of the ne'er-do-wells and lie-a-beds are almost certainly rich. How about a zany slogan like 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'?

Howzabout? Our world is deeply racist and unfair as those who own the land, commerce and factories get richer at our expense. The collapse of the banks and the car industry and of nations shows us that we need change, that no party will make, to treat everyone equally. We need a new party.

Exactly

I think the TV commentators are as representative of English opinion as the likes of James Traynor and Chic Young are of our opinion. Most English people over 10 are realistic about England's chances: Quarter finals and semis if lucky or can overcome penalty curse. In fact I was chatting with Mark Pougatch last week (seriously, he lives in the same vilage as me) and that was his opinion too. And for all that these St George's flags are tacky, it's a hundred times better than when they flew Union Flags.

Can we have him back please?

I'd go along with Grant to a limited extent. If there was an overwhelming democratic case and popular will for independence then the obstacles we would have to take on the chin. I don't think either nationalists or unionists should use the economic case as the trump card. It's either the right thing to do or not: nothing to do with short-term economic advantage. The leadership of the independence movement is now more or less only the SNP leaders. However they have been sliding down a slippery slope from promoting the democratic & moral case for independence to the economic case for independence and now even further to the managerial case for independence (and by the way we'll keep the pound and British military bases, oh, and share a few embasssies). I can see why they have done this. Support for independence is always higher outside of elections when the downside is discussed, so there are lots of people who would like independence, but remain sceptical of its benefits. But even if you add together the 20% or so who would want independence no matter the consequences to the nearly 20% who would think about it, then you would still not budge into a majority. I only think independence will come about if there is a constitutional crisis in the UK. Basically the UK government would have to do something so terrible that people would want to leave. But given that Britain's only nuclear weapons are in Scotland (although American ones in England occasionally) and given that the Poll Tax still couldn't budge support for independence, it is hard to imagine what could be so damaging or who would be stupid enough to do it.

You can try the Lancaster Hall Hotel in Craven Terrace, Lancaster Gate. It's just opposite Hyde Park. It's normal rooms are £65 single, but it has a youth wing (open to any age) run by the German YMCA where rooms are £30 single. http://www.lancaster-hall-hotel.co.uk/ I doubt you'll get anything cheap near Kings X.

This article from a nationalist is completely on the button. http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2010/05/have-lib-dems-stymied-scottish.html

You can delude yourself as much as you like. I realise that the Holyrood election is more important for the decisions that matter. But like you, I am in a minority. If the Scots agreed with you turnout would be higher in a Scottish Election. Despite being a PR election so that "every vote counts", people in Scotland still vote more in a General Election by quite a large proportion. This doesn't make me happy. It's just a fact that we can't hide from. There is a simple job for the SNP to do: make the case for independence and make it stack up. Forget about bouncing a referendum on the back of the previously expected Tory government, with the franchise extended to weans. Make the case, and convince people. Like many I am not some unionist with a love of the UK, I just remain highly sceptical that there will be any substantial difference from being independent. The SNP can go along blaming the voters for being too thick to understand them (the People of Glasgow East were enlightened 2 years ago, but now are thickies who voted for a monkey in a red rosette because their grandad told them to?) What does Glasgow East tell you? Basically Labour does not have a right to rule in Glasgow and when they stuff it up and when the SNP put up a good candidate they will do well. So the people aren't morons at all.

Extremely decent of the SNP to put it in their constitution that people can vote for who they like. Free elections too - how wonderful! The modern, independent Scotland will be a beacon for freedom where ordinary men and women can vote for who they like - even if it's not the SNP. The SNP constitution would of course be incorporated into human rights act...

Grant B Everyone knew the Tories were likely to win this election. Do you honestly think that people woke up on Friday morning shocked to realise that the Tories came first? And, even more shocked that Labour hadn't won? This is extremely patronising. Please credit the Scottish people with some intelligence - even if they don't agree with you! I know the votes in Holyrood will be higher for the SNP. People aren't daft. But in the election that counts the most (given who holds the purse strings and that turnout is higher in Scotland for a Westminster election than a Holyrood election) people chose 4:1 to vote for parties who did not want independence even though they knew that the Tories were likely to win! If there is to be PR for the UK elections, the opposite could happen: if we know that we can never get a Conservative Party ruling us alone then one of the biggest fears would evaporate. If the English vote is delivered by PR we will not see the same massive Tory bloc in England.

And hell did seem to freeze over last night.

This really is wishful thinking. If the UK electoral system changes to a PR system the great bogey of unfettered tory rule in Scotland disappears very rapidly. If the SNP can't even get 1/5th of the voters to choose them, independence looks like a long way off.

Qu.1 - Cropredy at the moment. (Just north of Banbury). And I am going to Wem-be-ley, Wem-be-ley in a fortnight. She wore a yellow ribbon in the Merry Month of May. And if, you ask, why she wore a yellow ribbon, it's for the famous Oxford United who are going to Wem-be-ley. Sorry I diverge Qu.2 Again the false choice! It wasn't just the nationalised industries that collapsed, it was all manufacturing. Removing subsidies to the nationalised sector was one thing, allowing one-tenth of British manufacturing to fall with no support at all was unforgiveable.

The destruction of British manufacturing under Margaret Thatcher was really so unnecessary. Yes reform was needed and yes we were falling behind the rest of Europe. But it was Thatcher's blind dogmatism that made the destruction so much worse. She believed in unfettered markets with no state intervention whatsoever. So our manufacturers were picked off and destroyed. It really didn't have to be that way, nor was the alternative propping up lame ducks. A bit of targeted support and economic stimulation could have saved a lot of British industry and given it the breathing space to regroup. However out of a drive for ideological purity this was not forthcoming. Compare with this crisis where the current government has made the politically difficult decision to stop banks collapsing in order to preserve a key part of our economy (financial services are 25% of the UK's economy).