text:
Mass Effect 4: Sequel?
Thread starter Spoonius
Silly Hats
The Catalyst is just a rogue AI that developed it's own twisted set of morals and ethics.
I simply cannot understand why this is hard for people to grasp - this was stated clearly in the original ending. Also considering that rogue synthetics has been one of the major themes of the storyline, it is completely canon. There is no god child, there is no indoctrination, Harbinger isn't messing around with Shepard. It isn't that complicated, there isn't a hidden meaning behind it. It simply is.
Hell, Rogue Synthetics is running theme of so many other Sci-Fi plot lines that Mass Effect is well known for being inspired by.
Leviathan created the Catalyst to prevent conflict between Organics and Synthetics, though the Catalyst couldn't comprehend the value of Organics, the Catalyst then turned on it's creators, "They didn't approve". Simply because it was doing it's assigned task with the cold, calculating, unemotional logic of a computer. Organics like Saren have been tainted with Indoctrination, this is the only reason why an Organic would logically agree that being preserved in the form of a Reaper is an ideal 'solution'.
Each repeating Cycle only reaffirms The Catalyst's twisted logic as there hasn't been any resistance against it's solution. It clearly mentions that no other Organic had ever been able to confront the Catalyst - let alone have the ability to end it's existence. It is an Intelligence, it doesn't feel emotions, it only follows logic.
This interpretation still 100% functions regardless if you don't have the EC or Leviathan DLC.
This is the intended message, I just wish that less people thought about it logically rather than deconstructing what was shown, simply writing it off as Blue/Red/Green. The implications have much more subtext.
I always saw the ending this way and I actually like it quite a bit.
Spoonius
RJ 17 said:
It's called the Extended Cut. You're quite literally the only person I've encountered since the release of the EC that believes the IT still holds water.
Not true, the third video in the OP was actually created specifically for the EC.
The extra sequences at the end showing how the galaxy moves on...there's nothing to suggest those are hallucinations or dreams. As I mentioned previously: if they were indeed hallucinations or dreams...then why does Shepard still have one if you pick Red? Doesn't that mean you officially break free of Indoctrination? Wouldn't Red just end with Shepard waking up broken and bloodied on the battlefield?
I've already answered this. Please stop repeating the same questions over and over again.
1. Shepard is still incapacitated following the indoctrination attempt, regardless of whether he 'passed' or 'failed'. He wakes up in London afterwards if you choose Destroy and have a high enough EMS, remember? Everything before that is a figment of his imagination.
2. It'd be a dead giveaway.
A good analogy? Telling a homeless guy you have no cash, then buying a coffee ten metres away from him.
And this is why I made a comment to Bloated Guppy about your absolute refusal to believe anything that Bioware says.
Nope, you said that because you can't come up with much credible evidence in lieu of insults.
For one: you insist that the EC actually expands on the IT when it completely debunks it
It doesn't, stop repeating that as if it's a fact.
But also because of the fact that - by the very quote you posted earlier - Bioware has said that they are done with Shepard. Yes, they want it to be a Mass Effect game, and not a spin-off, but they also want to write a new story that has little or nothing to do with Shepard and his/her crew.
This is just about the only argument of yours that actually has any weight behind it. It contradicts my fan theory to a degree (which was just for fun), but not IT.
I'd also like to remind you that their next game may very well not be about Shepard. That doesn't mean they won't come back to Shepard in some way, shape or form. And knowing Bioware, that doesn't mean their next game won't include Shepard either.
As for the "Reaper Growls" while you're speaking with the Illusive Man...you do realize that HE is trying to Indoctrinate Shepard, right? Every time you hear a growl during that sequence and see the black tendrils along the outside of the screen, it's when TIM is flexing his power and using it to try and control you.
So TIM can make Reaper sounds now? And create ambient whispers? And spontaneously transfer Anderson's wound to Shepard? And teleport?
There's an old saying: the simplest explanation is often times the correct one. It's way easier to think that that's just the sound in Shepard's mind every time TIM is trying to Indoctrinate him/her, not that it's an actual Reaper growling at Shepard through the haze of the dream. Notice that you only hear those growls when you're speaking with TIM? And only when he's using his power on you?
Not true. Once again, this is something I've already stated beforehand. The growls occur throughout ME3, not just during the end confrontation with TIM. During dream sequences, when seeing the boy in the air vent, etc.
They also occurred in one of the ME background novels.
"Why aren't your squadmates with you at the end?" The Normandy came and picked them up.
True with EC.
"Why does the Citadel look like the Collector Base?" Both were made with Reaper architecture. Beyond that, think of the Collector Base: long, dark hallways filled with bodies. Where are you when that comparison is made? A long dark hallway filled with bodies. Why is it filled with bodies in both cases? Because they're trying to make a Reaper in both cases.
The geometry is far more significant than the aesthetics. For example, the character movements as described in-game are impossible.
"Backwards writing! Just like in a dream!"
Nobody said this was evidence. In fact, the videos specifically denounce it...
"Moving panels, just like in the Shadow Broker's ship!"
Also not important evidence. The point is more that most of his surroundings have likely been based upon Shepard's memories (Starchild certainly is, you can't deny that). And that the control panel is not the actual Citadel control panel seen in ME1. Still a secondary consideration.
"Well what about all the lightning!"
Which lighting argument are you referring to? The skewed shadows?
"Well what about the fact that Anderson gets to the control panel before you, says he arrived after you, yet there's only one-way in and one-way out!" Crappy design choices are crappy, or crappy writing is crappy. Anderson says he doesn't think he came up in the same place that you did. So it's possible that he was actually the first one up the beam and was farther ahead of you along the path. That, or the world designers couldn't be arsed to make the control panel platform accessible from multiple angles.
OK:
1. Shepard wakes up to hear Major Coats calling off the attack, stating clearly that "no one made it to the beam". Anderson didn't pass Shepard on the way forward though, did he? So if you're going to take that scene at face value (which I don't), then you're going to have to admit you're wrong.
2. Even if Anderson did magically arrive first (in which case he'd know that Shepard hadn't reached the beam before him), he should have been visible from where Shepard was standing. Shepard was directly behind him.
"Well why is it that the only ending that shows Shepard waking up is the Red one!" Because that's the only ending where Shepard actually still has a body.
Yeah, because it's TOTALLY BELIEVABLE that Shepard survives:
1. A direct hit from Harbinger's energy beam (which can bisect starships and vapourises every other human it touches). Bear in mind that if real like you're stating, and not imaginary, the impact was powerful enough to melt off his goddamn armour... and yet Shepard remains unscathed? No burns, no dismemberment, nothing?
2. A powerful explosion that engulfs him/her when the Destroy capsule is shot.
3. An explosion of almost nuclear proportions when the Citadel detonates.
4. Prolonged exposure to vacuum (without even a helmet). This has even killed Shepard before (ME2 Normandy destruction).
5. Re-entry through Earth's atmosphere (Shepard was unrecognisable when recovered by Cerberus).
6. Impact with Earth (concrete actually) at terminal velocity. SPLAT.
"Well why is Anderson's choice Renegade Red and TIM's is Paragon Blue?" Because as much as you may hate and disagree with TIM, they want you to understand that he did have the right idea, just the wrong motivations. Anderson deals in absolutes: DESTROY THEM ALL AND DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES!
Mate, that's pure conjecture. In fact the very opposite has been hammered into our heads since ME1.
I'll even go so far as to deny that Destroy was even a bad option, taken at face value. It didn't kill the Geth, or any other organic-made synthetics for that matter. It didn't even destroy the Mass Relays. So regardless of whether IT is true or false, it's irrefutable that Starchild either lied, or was wrong!
So let me get this straight...you believe that the next ME game is going to be a 100% direct sequel that could start off right where ME3 leaves off with Shepard laying in a pile of rubble on the battlefield of Earth which is being overrun by the bulk of the Reaper army? That the game will start with him/her getting up and going to fire off the Crucible for realsies?
Possibly. But if you'd actually read the entire OP, you'd know that isn't what I think.
Why do they need an endless army of Reaper ground forces? For the Harvest, of course. They can destroy entire cities from space - as Diana Allers points out towards the end of the game when she mentions that they didn't even bother landing on her home colony, they just blew it up from space - but they still need to send down ground troops to clean up all the technology and hunt down any survivors.
They need ground forces to completely eradicate a population, just like Krogan infantry were required to ultimately defeat the Rachni. And they do want to harvest humans. But since it's plausible that they can attack from space, I'll give you this one.
So in accordance to the IT, what does rejecting the choices signify?
Not sure. It actually seems pretty ambiguous. On the one hand, he denies the Reapers their indoctrination attempt. On the other, he refuses to commit to destroying the Reapers.
James Joseph Emerald said:
It would rob ME3 of any kind of plot coherency or narrative payoff by making its ending essentially "all in the main character's head" (which is one of the most exhausted tropes of all time)
Not if it's followed up though. And I think the trope would fit in tactfully.
It would make ME4 inevitably have to re-tread most of ME3's plot as they pad out the reaper invasion, come up with some other way to overcome them, and have you work towards an identical conclusion (i.e. defeating the reapers... except this time for realsies!)
It would pretty much quash any fresh ideas, because everything will (yet again) become secondary to the reaper invasion plot and relegated to rushed side-quests that seem at odds with the main story rather than ancillary to it.
No more so than ME3 was a retreading of ME1 or ME2. Even the example I gave in the OP would play out drastically different.
It would invalidate the experience of everyone who actually enjoys the original ending to ME3 (especially since the extended cut was released)
The outrage to ME3's ending (including the EC) was unprecedented. This would be a lesser concern for ME4 than for any other game that has ever existed.
Speaking of which, it would make the extended cut completely pointless and a waste of everyone's time
Not necessarily. Like I said in the OP, it's entirely plausible that the EC was intended to be an intermediate stopgap measure to placate the community.
IT is bad storytelling.
It's amazing storytelling. If it's true. :/
nameless023 said:
The one fatal flaw that the IT has is that it only explains what is going on during the ending of ME3 up until Shepard being indoctrinated or not but it doesn't explain what happens after. The Reapers are launching the final strike on Earth and even if Shepard does manage to wake up he wouldn't be able to do anything in his condition.
It's true that we don't have closure within ME3... but like you said it's possible that said closure will be provided by the upcoming game. Or maybe even a later game in the franchise. Although you're right to be sceptical I guess.
PS: We don't know exactly what Shepard's condition actually is. If IT is true, then everything we see of him/her after the energy beam impact is imaginary. Although his immense willpower during that scene suggests he probably isn't too badly off....
Nothing is said about what happens next, but one thing is certain and that is that the galaxy is somehow saved and humanity survives. Why? Because of the Stargazer sequence: an old man and a kid in a very peaceful looking scene talking about the Sheppard. It's almost pointless and doesn't add anything to the story but it clearly says "There will be something next" and as far as I recall the IT never explains this sequence. And I'd bet anything to say that the Stargazer sequence will be directly related to how Mass Effect 4 will begin.
I always thought that was part of the dream. Shepard imagining his legacy?
I seriously hope Bioware doesn't do what Volition did with Saints Row IV and go all "We had multiple endings on the previous game but we decided to go with one and ignore the other ending. Hopefully you picked the right ending last game".
If it's not directly based on Shepard though, Bioware would be able to adapt ME4 to the choices of the previous games without having to make everything subjective. And if the end of ME3 really was Shepard's indoctrination, then nothing much has actually changed.
Pr0 said:
Regardless of that, Indoctrination Theory was never more than a desperate attempt at trying to make a horrible conclusion somehow seem smarter and deeper than it was or ever will be.
Well it succeeds. Even if it's never officially confirmed or denied.
You can't keep hoping that the studio that made KoTOR is going to miraculously re-emerge and take control of their games development again. BioWare is dead and gone, all you're throwing money at right now is a zombie raised and sustained by the necromancer that is EA.
Seems a bit pessimistic. That said, I won't be pre-ordering a Bioware game again...
8-Bit_Jack said:
They DID say that Shepard wasn't indoctrinated, and that the Indoctrination Theory was wrong.
From everything I've seen, they specifically declined to either confirm or deny IT ("speculation for everyone", remember?).
Rodolphe Kourkenko said:
IMO, they burned their IP and, if you look at some interview (like this one http://www.sidhtech.com/news/mass-effect-4-bioware-shepard-name/10028902/), you can see that NO ANY EVENTS of the past three games will be featured in the game.
So it's not a sequel, it's not a prequel.
The link doesn't work.
Falafel said:
If anyone here doesn't want to take a shotgun to ending-bashers' faces, then they should fuck off and die.
Bioware employee of the month right here.
white_wolf said:
I think BW proved with MEtrilogy that they just can't do trilogies or at least the head of their department can't do trilogies they should start small and either make one or two for the ME4 universe and see if they can stay on theme, lore, and story before making anymore trilogies.
It seemed like they were doing fine... right up to the last fifteen minutes. That's really the only part of ME3 where they totally failed.
However now all that I said when they rewrote ME3's script they also WROTE OUT his thrall role so no there is no IT its an indoctrination wish at this point.
But if he was already a sleeper agent thanks to TIM and Cerberus, then why would he need to be indoctrinated?
bug_of_war
Spoonius said:
That's not true. Several actual Reapers (alive and dormant), Object Rho, various artifacts, countless Reaperfied or indoctrinated enemy troops... hell, potentially even the Reaper IFF aboard the Normandy (James mentions a humming sound, remember?).
By several Reapers do you mean the minute he spent in close proximity to Sovereign, the hour he spent on the dead Reaper corpse and the 10 minutes he speant next to the Reaper on the Quarian homeworld? You'd have to list the various artifacts for me to have any footing to say yay or nay. "Reaperfied" troops do not cause indoctrination, they are just husks used to shock and demoralize the organics, at no point are they meant to be able to cause indoctrination. The humming sound James mentions could be any number of things such as the ship engines, the metal of the ship vibrating due to inside and outside forces, and there's also the possibility that his brain is making up the humming noise to counteract the quiet.
Doesn't really matter anyway, that was just a single vector. There are plenty of other ways the Reapers could have got to Shepard (see above).
If the Reapers wanted to get to Shepard then why would they send the Collectors to obliterate the original Normandy in the first place? Why would they then not follow the ship debris immediately after it began to fall into the surrounding planets orbit? How is it that not only could Cerberus recover Shepard's body, but Legion was able to recover a piece of Shepard's armour before the Collectors (servants of the Reapers) even got a chance? Why would Miranda not tell Shepard at any point of all the things they put into him and how some of them was technology she had not seen before and was not fully aware of it's intent?
bug_of_war said:
I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws mate.
I understand that people think I'm being naive, but I still believe it has merit. I still haven't heard anything conclusive that invalidates IT, yet the amount of support (I won't say 'evidence', because it's not) is almost irrefutable.
What holes? Please list some.
Alright. Shepard has spent six months on Earth under heavy supervision when ME3 starts, when he finally leaves Earth as it's getting attacked, his convictions are still the same, find a way to defeat them. Remember how Saren was "slowly" indoctrinated? He didn't give up hope for survival, but he tried to prove that some organics were useful and worth saving, and the Reapers confirmed his beliefs cause they knew he would be more open to indoctrinating that way. When Shepard finally speaks to the Reaper on the Quarian home world, it again tells him his fight is doomed, and he again keeps to his conviction of uniting the galaxy.
Shepard's first dream sequence can be summed up as a nightmare as he has literally seen his species home world being devastated and witnessed just how ruthless the Reaper invasion really is. He is basically having a recurring nightmare in which the cold dark machines from the oblivion of space seem to keep winning and it's terrifying him.
It's stated that those whom are becoming indoctrinated see objects and shadows moving whilst they're awake, at no point do we ever see any of this type of shit happening.
We saw with the Hanar that got indoctrinated that indoctrinated creatures can go about relatively easily without being noticed as being indoctrinated and that only when on their own do they begin to do things that show they are indoctrinated (such as what the Hanar did). Shepard is on his own many times during the third game, and at no point does he act suspicious. At no point does he change, at no point does he do anything that could give the Reapers or their troops the edge.
IF the Reaper IFF was causing indoctrination, then why is it that Garrus and Tali, two squad mates that have been on the ship almost just as long as Shepard, do not give off any hints of indoctrination?
PTSD and IT don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, part of the theory is that the increased psychological pressure Shepard is subjected to throughout ME3 actually increase his vulnerability to indoctrination.
I agree, but I think that the amount of holes/stretches that are in/taken with the IT (and Bioware devs confirming that the EC is cannon and thus Shepard was not in some Reaper indoctrinated trance) make it far mor likely that the IT is bullshit and that most of Shepard's actions, reactions and psychological state are a part of a man with PTSD.
RJ 17
Spanishax said:
It's entirely plausible the Reapers would manipulate Shepard's mind (which is what they're doing during the dream sequence, remember) to cause him to "fail" if he decided not to choose.
Let me go ahead and stop you right there. No, it's not plausible that they'd make him dream about failing, about everyone dying, about the next cycle being the one that wins. For one: that's not what the IT claims the dreams are about. The IT claims that the ending sequences are dreams meant to make Shepard believe that he/she made the right choice. That what he/she decides is the decision that will win the war. And that's why the IT falls apart. Like I said, the IT was created before the EC, as such the IT has no way of compensating for the fact that the "I Reject These Choices" choice exists. It is the Reject ending that thoroughly proves that the literal interpretation is the one that's correct. It shows what happens if the Crucible is never fired off. You lose the war. They even change the Star Gazer scene to be two lifeforms from the next cycle talking about the Legend of Shepard that they learned from The Archives.
To still believe in the IT after seeing the Reject ending is living in denial. Denial over the fact that yes...Bioware DID fuck up the ending that badly. Believe me, friend, I'm a HUGE Mass Effect fan. It's easily the best game series I've ever played. Even after the extreme letdown of the ending, I still love the game and series. As I said to Spoonius: I'd love to believe that Bioware was capable of pulling off something as amazingly brilliant as the IT, but the evidence isn't there.
Snip.
Well, I tried, but apparently you're not as open to being wrong as you claim to be. Don't you find it at least a little bit strange that so many people in this topic are arguing against you? Shouldn't that be a hint that maybe you're mistaken on this matter?
Soooo yeah, keep living the dream, I guess. Pretty much the last thing I can tell you is that if you honestly believe that ME4 is going to be a direct sequel to ME3 in which Shepard gets to finish the fight against the Reapers, Indoctrinated or no...well, you're doomed for disappointment my friend. Apparently in your mind, Shepard never will get to finish the fight with the Reapers. I've offered up all the evidence that I can, evidence which is clearly seen and experienced in the game while the IT's evidence is based off of conjecture and shaky interpretations of what is seen and experienced in the game. As I've said before: it was created because the fans desperately wanted something to cling to in order to make the ending of the series they loved so much not equate to a huge disappointment. There's no need to come up with a bunch of hypothetical and circumstantial evidence when everything during the ending sequence is much easier to describe as "Crappy Writing and Design Choices".
No hard feelings, I hope, as there certainly aren't any on my end. I always enjoy anything that gives me an excuse to write at length about Mass Effect. But I give up on trying to convince you that the IT is wrong.
Just a recap over the main points of my argument for you to think over and hopefully see the error in your logic.
1: If the IT is true, this cycle is doomed. The crucible never fires off, and the Reject ending shows exactly what happens when/if the Crucible is never fired off.
2: The existence of the Reject ending, itself, isn't covered by the IT. Arguing that it's just another Full Indoctrination choice doesn't work, seeing as how it'd go against the grain and be the only choice that shows a dream Shepard making the wrong choice to save his/her cycle.
3: It assumes that everything we see in the EC color endings is a lie, despite the fact that there's absolutely nothing to suggest that.
Other fun tidbits:
1: The Prothean VI never calls Shepard out on being Indoctrinated.
2: Check out the track title from the official sound track:
Spoiler: The stunningly beautiful music during the ending cinematics.
"An End, Once And For All". Even the frickin' soundtrack says that it's the end of the war.
white_wolf
Well that was where my keeping it short cut out. Basically again not to be super long, the reason why they decided that Hacket needed to send shep5000 to Arrival to get programed was because the memories Liara imprinted on him + the mind over matter "I'm the real shep," mantra TIM established throughout ME2 fakeshep really was the real shep he was resistant to the regular signals like the real one showed in ME and he couldn't be pinned down long enough to actually get any real effect from the signals you need constant exposure to them over a few days minimum so knocking him out allowed for the programing to take place in full the mind can't refuse suggestions when its asleep and the reaper code was finally accessed shep blows up the relay thinking he just stopped the reapers but he actually closed off a backdoor into their own base if shep didn't blow it up Kensen was going to being told one thing by the reapers but actually doing the opposite.
Shep from now on is Harbi's thrall like he told him he would be but like Saren he's allowed to do things he believes are of his own will but actually aren't from then on he is unknowingly working for the reapers by getting the largest military force in one location so they can all die without the bulk of their armies no planet anywhere will be putting up a fight for long not even if you cure the genophage will it stand against the reapers. Really I'm shortening it all up and maybe I should really get on the bsn and type out the near novel this loss potential plot could've or had evidence in game to show it was going this way but its far longer and far more detailed that goes over all 3 games.
electric method
Oh for fucks sakes! Let the IT go! It's been totally debunked by Bioware and many fans with an understanding of the Mass Effect Universe. As it's been said here in this thread, and many others, the IT was created to try to cope with the craptastic writing and awful ending of Mass Effect 3. Since then BioWare has come out and directly said "The IT is NOT what happens. The actual endings and EC are what actually happen. Get over it. IT was a dead on arrival theory anyways as it had just as many holes in it as the actual writing for Mass Effect 3.
Then there is the not so small fact that Galaxy Destroying Reapers wiping out all life is about as high the threat scale you can go. A direct sequel to Mass Effect 3 would have to undo the rather definitive ending of ME3 and reintroduce the not so dead Reapers. Yeah, right. Bioware has taken their lumps from the ME3 ending debacle. Does anyone really think they are so stupid as to do a direct sequel to ME3 and open themselves for giant plot holes, lore problems and how to continue on from the 3 cupcake colors of doom endings from ME3? Mass Effect with Shep and company vs. The Reapers is over. Let's all move on and see where this goes and let Bioware prove they have learned their lessons from the DA2/ME3 debacles.


300-unit apartment complex planned for Lake Elmo. It would be the biggest in the city.
Wednesday night's game at struggling Nebraska is the nearest thing to a must-win Big Ten road game for the struggling Gophers, who have lost three straight games to ranked teams and are 1-6 away from Williams Arena this season.
MN Jewish leaders talked with Ilhan Omar about anti-Semitism last year. Why they remain frustrated.
BIX Produce leaving St. Paul for Little Canada. New site to triple facility's space.


text:
Csepel () — венгерский производитель грузовых автомобилей, автобусных шасси и автокомпонентов (сцепления, коробок передач, рулевых механизмов).

История компании

Предыстория
В связи с изменениями политической и экономической обстановки после Второй мировой войны правительство учитывало проблемы автомобильного транспорта. По окончании радикальных преобразований, включавших национализацию компаний, и в соответствии с положениями вновь созданного СЭВ, Венгрия сосредоточилась на производстве автобусов и грузовиков. С началом производства на вновь созданных заводах Ikarus и Csepel Auto началась новая глава в истории венгерской автомобильной промышленности.

В 1945-1948 годы, в течение первой трехлетки венгерские автомобильные и тракторные компании МАВАГ и RÁBA продолжали выпускать свой довоенный модельный ряд.

Budapest Székesfővárosi Közlekedési Részvénytársaság () (BSZKRT, в просторечии обычно называемый «Beszkárt») запросили современный дизельный двигатель и автобус. Производитель MÁVAUT также запрашивали новый тип автобуса на 30-35 человек; Министерство обороны запрашивали 1,3- и 3,5-тонные внедорожники; Министерство сельского хозяйства призывало к разработке нового типа трактора. Центр тяжелой промышленности обнаружил, что покупка иностранной лицензии позволяет быстро удовлетворить эти потребности. Были выделены три завода: Gräf & Stift (Австрия), Steyr (Австрия) и MAN (Германия).

Начало
В 1949 году в одноимённом пригороде Будапешта на месте разрушенных в конце войны предприятий Weiss был построен крупный машиностроительный комбинат Csepel. Специализация предприятия — станкостроение, производство автомобильных компонентов, автобусных шасси, а с 1950 по 1989 годы производились грузовые автомобили. Csepel стали первыми грузовиками, производство которых было организовано недавно созданной Венгерской Народной Республике.

Первым директором завода являлся Ференцне Биро, инженер-механик, получивший высшее образование в Москве, младший брат Матиаша Ракоши. Выдержка из учредительного договора от 18 ноября 1949 года:Национальный экономический совет в полномочиях, делегированных правительством Венгерской Народной Республики, от 3 ноября 1949 г., 322/16/1949. В своем решении № CSEPEL AUTÓGYAR решили создать национальную компанию.

а./ Зарегистрированный офис национальной компании: Budapest, V., Akadémia u. 9.

Местонахождение: Сигетсентмиклош,

b./ Предмет компании: производство автомобилей и двигателей, а также тракторных двигателей,

c./ Срок деятельности компании: бессрочный,

d./ За компанию отвечает министр тяжелой промышленности.Первые модели грузовиков были разработаны на базе грузовиков австрийской фирмы Steyr. 21 декабря 1949 года по лицензии Steyr был построен первый 4-цилиндровый двигатель Csepel. 3 апреля 1950 года был построен первый автомобиль Csepel с двигателем собственного производства, который был испытан генеральным директором Ференцем Биро во дворе завода. В этот же период был построен ещё один грузовик Csepel D-350. В этом же году было выпущено 1666 штук. Производство моделей D-350 (дизель) и B-350 (бензин) продолжалось с 1950 по 1958 год.

С 5 по 12 сентября 1950 года 8 гоночных грузовиков Csepel D и B-350 участвовали в международных гонках на надежность и скорость, организованных Польской автомобильной ассоциацией. Венгерский Csepelek был первым, кто пришёл к финишу в 2000-километровой сложной гонке в Варшаве и занял первое место в категории дизельных двигателей, а также второе место в категории бензиновых двигателей, опередив уже известные международные бренды. Благодаря этим событиям и достигнутому результату, грузовик Csepel 350 и компания, которой едва исполнилось пять месяцев, получили международное признание.

К 1960-м годам Csepel производил бортовые грузовики и седельные тягачи (они в составе автопоездов грузоподъёмностью 10 тонн широко поставлялись в страны соцлагеря, в том числе и в СССР), шасси для автобусов «Икарус», гусеничные тягачи К800 с грузовой платформой, крановые шасси, пожарные и специальные машины.

Период расцвета
В период с 1968 по 1975 год в СЭВ произошли структурные изменения: главной задачей Венгрии стало производство автобусов. Все производственные мощности должны были быть сфокусированы на этом. Кабины грузовиков Csepel сначала изготавливала Лаборатория работ () в Эстергоме, затем Jelcz и Star в Польше.

В 1968 году компания Rába в Дьере начала производить лицензированные двигатели MAN и грузовики Rába нового поколения.

В 1970-х годах комбинат разработал новую гамму грузовых автомобилей широко применяя кооперацию с предприятиями стран соц. лагеря и прежде всего Польши. Однако, покупка лицензии грузовых автомобилей западно-германской компании M.A.N. и производство их заводом Rába в Дьере серьёзно ударили по «Чепелю». В отличие от современных грузовиков Raba, продукция производства серьёзно устарела. С 1952 по 1975 год комбинат производил также мотоциклы марки «Паннония». Однако в связи с падением экспортного спроса на них, от их производства пришлось отказаться.

Упадок
Производство двигателей Csepel прекратилось в 1975 году, после чего грузовики Csepel в основном производились на средства RÁBA небольшими сериями. Вместо собственных двигателей, на грузовики начинают устанавливаться производимые в Венгрии двигатели Rába-MAN. C 1975 по 1980 года на заводе так же производились шведские вездеходы Volvo C202 Laplander. За 1980-е годы объём производства тяжёлых грузовиков сократился с 3—5 тысяч до 1 тысячи единиц в год, завод практически полностью переключается на производство шасси и прочих агрегатов для «Икарусов», а грузовики собирают по заказам. С 1989 года завод полностью переключился на производство шасси и автокомпонентов.

Последние годы
Компания, в которой к концу 1986 года работало около 10 000 человек, была ликвидирована в 1992 году из-за неплатежеспособности. К 1993 году в компании осталось 2000 сотрудников. Хотя собственные финансовые проблемы и привели к закрытию Csepel, Ikarus все ещё производил автобусы в 2016 году на трех своих заводах: в Будапеште; Секешфехерваре, медье Фейер; и Сегеде, медье Чонград.

Успехи в автоспорте
В 2007 году грузовик D344 EZF успешно прошёл гонку Будапешт-Бамако (Мали, Африка) в категории Tour.

В 2009 году пожарная машина D420, построенная на шасси модели D344, также успешно завершила данную гонку.

Галерея

См. также
 Ikarus
 Jelcz M11

Примечания

Ссылки

Компании Венгрии
Автомобилестроительные компании Венгрии
Производители грузовых автомобилей Венгрии
Производители автокомплектующих Венгрии

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina prosecutor was the intended target of an elaborate kidnapping plot, but the kidnappers looked up the wrong address on the Internet and abducted the prosecutor's father instead, according to an indictment released Tuesday.
Authorities have said the kidnapping was retaliation for Colleen Janssen's prosecution of Kelvin Melton for his involvement in a 2011 shooting. Melton, a high-ranking member of the Bloods gang, orchestrated the abduction from behind bars using a cellphone, the indictment said.
While Frank Janssen was held in Atlanta, his kidnappers called his wife and made demands to benefit Melton, but authorities have not said specifically what they were asking for. They also sent her photos of him tied to a chair along with text messages threatening to cut him into pieces if their demands weren't met.
Melton was indicted along with Quantavious Thompson; Jakym Tibbs; Tianna Maynard; Clifton Roberts; Jenna Martin; Jevante Price; Michael Gooden and Patricia Kramer. All face a federal conspiracy charge related to the abduction, and all but Kramer are charged with kidnapping. Some of the defendants face additional charges. All but Kramer were in custody.
Kramer found the address of the intended victim online. She rented a car and the members of the kidnapping team drove to Louisiana, but for some reason that's not explained in the indictment, they called it off.
Maynard looked online for Colleen Janssen's address, but actually found her father's.
Early on April 5, Maynard, Martin, Thompson and Tibbs left the Atlanta area for North Carolina. Melton called them several times while they were on the road, at one point asking to be put on speaker phone to instruct each member of the team on their role. He told them to wear khakis and collared shirts during the abduction, so they stopped at a Walmart to buy new clothes.
When they got to Janssen's home, Maynard waited in the car while Martin knocked on the door. Thompson and Tibbs — one holding a handgun the other a stun gun — stood out of view. When Janssen cracked the door, Thompson and Tibbs forced their way in, using the stun gun several times and pistol whipping him.
The indictment doesn't say when the kidnappers figured out they had abducted Janssen's father instead of the prosecutor.
As they drove back to Atlanta, Janssen was forced to lie on the floorboard of the back seat with a blanket over him, with Thompson and Tibbs' feet on him. They put handcuffs on him, pistol whipped him and used the stun gun dozens of times, the indictment said.
Melton arranged for Janssen to be held in an Atlanta apartment, and called Martin to dictate a text message to be sent to Janssen's wife, who received a series of threatening text messages beginning April 7.
While Janssen was in the apartment, he was taped to a chair in a closet, and Martin, Maynard, Thompson and Tibbs all stood watch, the indictment said. Price and Gooden also agreed to watch him, and Melton sent instructions to Roberts to assist in the killing of Janssen if Melton's demands weren't met or if the team lost contact with Melton for three days.
Around 8 p.m. on April 9, Melton received a text: "We got car, spot, and shovel." A few minutes later, Melton called the group and told them to kill Janssen, according to the indictment. He gave specific instructions to cover up the crime.
By the evening of April 9, authorities had determined Melton was calling the shots from his cell. When corrections officers tried entering, Melton smashed the phone.
Authorities pinpointed Janssen's location and stormed the apartment just before midnight April 9. A short while later, Maynard, Roberts and Martin were caught in a Chevy Tahoe that had two shovels, a pick and a gun owned by Roberts inside.


text:
title: Sound Analysis in Smart Cities
authors: Juan Pablo Bello, Charlie Mydlarz, and Justin Salamon
category: Chapter 13
order: 1
---

This is the text that describes chapter 13.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


A contemporary art and design buff, The Arty Type is a traveller who can be regularly spotted taking his well-honed eye and sharply styled suitcase around the world art circuit. He checks in at the biggest events on the calendar, from Basel to Miami to Hong Kong. He expects his hotels to be works of art as well, which is why he loves the Pullman Brussels Centre Midi – designed inside and out by architect Jean-Philippe Nuel. Each trip is a chance to make new discoveries, whether it's emerging artists at Art Dubai, the latest show at the Saatchi Gallery in London or simply taking time to lose himself in the galleries of the San Francisco Museum Of Modern Art. When night falls back at his hotel he'll explore the "Artist Playground by Pullman", a unique initiative – part gallery, part studio – which provides a platform for local artists and designers to show their work or to produce live performances. It's proof that wherever you are in the world, art has no borders.
The famous Alte Nationalgalerie is preparing to welcome Wanderlust, an exhibition on the theme of walking, featuring work by Paul Gauguin, Caspar David Friedrich and Pierre-Auguste Renoir.
For 250 years, the Royal Academy has hosted an annual Summer Exhibition of British artists. This year, The Great Spectacle: 250 Years Of The Summer Exhibition charts the highlights of one of the biggest events on the British cultural calendar, including work by Joshua Reynolds and Wolfgang Tillmans.
One of South America's most important contemporary art events, the São Paulo Biennal shines a spotlight on the region's emerging artists. Different locations in the city – including a modernist pavilion designed by Oscar Niemeyer – will play host to insightful avant-garde art.
The Rodin Museum will be lifting the lid on its namesake's relationship with the world of dance this spring. Articulated around his Mouvements De Danse series, the poetic exhibition will touch on the artist's fascination with the discipline through meetings with dancers of the time, such as Isadora Duncan and Loïe Fuller.
The well-known National Gallery Of Victoria is pulling out all the stops for the Masterworks From MoMA exhibition, highlighting more than 150 works by Cézanne, Dalí, Pollock and Koons borrowed from New York's Museum Of Modern Art. The show promises to be an unrivalled exploration of the role artists have played in societal change.
The annual Contemporary Istanbul event has become established as a meeting point for artists, gallerists and collectors the world over. This year's 13th edition focuses on emerging talent as well as more established names, all of whom play witness to the city's dynamic energy.
Images are the essence of Instagram, so posting photos that sit well together in terms of composition and colour is essential. Even if you're not planning on developing your account beyond the personal, each photo you post contributes to your "digital brand".
Photos taken on your phone almost always need a little tweaking. Look to apps such as Afterlight, VSCO and InstaSize to optimise them before you post. Think low-key and avoid colours that shout too much.
The key to Instagram success is well chosen images, posted regularly. You don't want your followers to forget about you or, worse, unfollow you.
Several new breeds of global nomad are blurring the lines between travelling for business and pleasure.
A guide to the best airport lounges, essential apps and hotels for travelling on business.
From Meeren (aka Split), to Braavos (aka Sibenik), via landscapes of the West (aka Krka National Park).


text:
17:238 Education of children having no permanent address, certain abandoned children, and children in foster care
A. Notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation to the contrary, the governing authority of each public elementary and secondary school shall establish a policy to provide for the placement in school and for the education of any child temporarily residing within the jurisdiction of the board who has no permanent address, who has been abandoned by his parents, or who is in foster care pursuant to placement through the Department of Children and Family Services.
B. No governing authority of a public elementary or secondary school shall deny enrollment in school to any child solely because the child has no permanent address, because the child has been abandoned by his parents, or because the child is in foster care pursuant to placement through the Department of Children and Family Services; however, nothing in this Section shall require the enrollment of any child not permitted by another school system to attend school, either permanently or temporarily, as a result of disciplinary actions.
C. The governing authority of each public elementary and secondary school shall establish a policy to ensure that a child who is in foster care pursuant to placement through the Department of Children and Family Services shall be allowed to remain enrolled in the public school in which the child was enrolled at the time he entered foster care for the duration of the child's stay in the custody of the state or until he completes the highest grade offered at the school if the Department of Children and Family Services determines that remaining in that school is in the best interest of the child. If the foster care placement is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the public school in which the child is enrolled, the governing authority of such school shall be responsible for providing free transportation for the child to and from a designated location which is within that school district and is located nearest to the child's residence and is determined to be appropriate by such governing authority and the Department of Children and Family Services. The Department of Children and Family Services shall be responsible for providing the child's transportation between that location and the child's residence.
Added by Acts 1989, No. 251, § 1. Amended by Acts 1995, No. 139, § 1; Acts 2000, 1st Ex.Sess., No. 39, § 1; Acts 2009, No. 297, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2010; Acts 2012, No. 249, § 1, eff. May 25, 2012.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
YouTube Is Closing YouTube Gaming
Ethan Gach
YouTube is getting rid of its dedicated gaming app after it failed to find a big enough audience, the company announced today in a blog post. Instead, gaming-specific content and features will have a new, dedicated home within the main YouTube site.
The Week In Games: Deliver Us To The Future
This New Fantasy Beat 'Em Up Is Like Dragon's Crown With Druids
Witch From Mercury's Suletta Joins The List of Anime Protags Who've Committed War Crimes
YouTube Gaming originally launched in 2015 after the video game streaming platform Twitch exploded in popularity and was bought by Amazon in 2014. Kotaku's Luke Plunkett praised the app when it was still in beta, but despite being superior to the Twitch mobile app in many ways, it never reached the same level of visibility and use.
Ryan Wyatt, YouTube's director of gaming content, told The Verge "there was confusion with the YouTube gaming app" in terms of what it was for, with many viewers not using most of its features and the majority of people still watching most of their gaming content on YouTube proper. Instead of keeping those features marooned on YouTube Gaming, the company plans to make them part of the main site and retire the existing dedicated app and site in March 2019.
The new location, which the blog post announcement simply calls "youtube.com/gaming," will be a home page with rows of recommended gaming-related videos at the top, as well as lists of currently popular livestreams and content from existing subscriptions. There will also be an option to select specific games as favorites so YouTube's algorithms can find recommendations around them. Most interesting of all will be a slot in the trending section reserved for "On The Rise" creators, ostensibly so good but underappreciated videos can get more eyes on them rather than just videos titled things like "SPIDER-MAN PS4 Walkthrough Gameplay Part 45 - END GAME SUIT (Marvel's Spider-Man)."
It's basically YouTube's way of reminding people that it's not just a place for vlogs and Let's Plays—it also has livestreams, just like Twitch. But while it's nice to see some of the more focused curation features being transported over to the main site most of us already visit, none of them currently seem groundbreaking enough to fundamentally challenge Twitch's monopoly on live gaming content.


text:
Psalm 91 Exegesis&nbspEssay
Length: 9 pages Sources: 8 Subject: Mythology - Religion Type: Essay Paper: #11248444 Related Topics: Jonathan Swift, Textual Analysis, Lion, Assertiveness
Exegesis of Psalm 91:1
Hayes and Holladay (2007) state that exegetical works are an exercise in "leading" readers of Scripture, in the sense that they act as interpretive signposts designed to assist readers in comprehending the Word of God (p. 1). This paper provides an exegetical analysis of Psalm 91:1-16 and discusses how the writer of the Psalm shows that God favors those who show complete faith in His ability to look after His faithful sons.
The Book of Psalms is a poetic collection of songs written by David, the shepherd boy who grew up to be a king, chosen by God to rule over His chosen people. The psalms are hymns expressing a range of thoughts, prayers, joys, pains, gladness and wonder. David's life was filled with such range -- from his slaying of Goliath, to his persecution by his family and friends, to his triumphant guidance of the Ark of the Covenant into the Temple. The psalms are so expressive of our humanity in all its varying aspects that they are still repeated in Church liturgy today.
The Biblical story of David begins with the Book of Samuel in the Old Testament. When Samuel arrives at the house of Jesse in Bethlehem, the Lord tells him not to be surprised by the height of the son he is to anoint, since he is still yet a small boy. The Lord tells Samuel which to anoint, and that one is David. This special anointing marks David as one upon whom "the Lord came powerfully" (1 Sam 16:13). Meanwhile, King Saul is oppressed by an evil spirit, and one of his attendants (following in the common belief of the time that music could help soothe a suffering body/soul) tells the King that he knows of a young son of Jesse of Bethlehem "who knows how to play the lyre" (1 Sam 16:16). It is through this invitation to play for the King that David is introduced to the royal court. David plays the lyre so well that Saul allows him to stay.
As Jonathan Kirsch observes, however, Saul did not merely allow David to stay with him: He also gave David an important title -- "weapons bearer" (Kirsch, 2000, p. 49). This title would foreshadow that great military victory that David would soon have over the Philistines. Indeed, it also foreshadows the glory of the Psalms as spiritual artillery. Psalm 91, in fact, acts as a spiritual bow and arrow that carries the reader straight to the heart of God, Who loves men after his own heart -- which is what David in the Psalms reflects. For this reason it is known as the "Soldier's Psalm" (Williams-Hayes, p. 51).
Psalm 91 was written in a similar style with similar content as Psalm 90. Once again, God is described as a place of "refuge" as Tesh and Zorn (2004) show. However, while Psalm 90 is a song or hymn that is meant to be expressive of the whole rather than the individual, Psalm 91 is more personal in its expression. It is directed to the inner self: it's use of the first person pronoun is indicative of the self-assertiveness of the Psalm. As Brueggemann (1984) states, the Psalm is "enormously open" to the individual and acts as a kind of tutorship -- an assurance or breathe of confidence for the hearer and a reminder of the true home and sanctuary of the faithful. It acts as hymn of praise that serves a two-fold purpose: first, it recognizes God as a divine protector; second, it asserts decisive trust and show of faith in God's goodness. It corresponds to the difficulties that David faced in his own life, when pursued by his own people (and kin) and how he never doubted his deliverance but had full confidence in the protection of God, in Whom he placed his trust.
Textual Analysis
As Tesh and Zorn (2004) indicate, the brunt of the Psalm is located in the Hebrew word "ki," the meaning of which can be found in the English word "because" or "for this reason." It is a pivotal word, "ki," and represents a hinging nature -- which is the essence of the Psalm: because God is the divine refuge, I will seek shelter in His arms.
This verse announces the point of the hymn and sets up the following verses which go to illustrate the theme, broaden it, deepen it, and expand it through visual imagery, as verse 4 does: "He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge." The imagery counters that provided in the preceding verse, which speakers of a "fowler's snare," a trap for catching birds. God, therefore, is pictured as a spiritual bird, who cannot be caught or subdued by the tricks of man. From man, therefore, the Psalm depicts God as a deliver. Indeed, deliverance from enemies and "terrors of the night" (Psalm 91:5) is the purpose.
Yet God is not just depicted as a saving eagle with protective wings -- but as plague-resistant: "A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand" (Psalm 91:7-8). The diseases of the world, the Psalmist notes, will take others with it into death, but the plague will not approach the divine one, whose shadow is a place of rest -- a "fortress" as verse 2 indicates. Thus, the theme is deepened by "death" imagery and "soldier" imagery, uniting these two ideas which are typical of a battlefield and applying them to a spiritual hymn. That such imagery would lend itself as applicable to such a hymn further illustrates the nature of the hymn itself: it is meant to rouse one's spirits, which may be dampened by thoughts of impending doom or disaster. It is meant to rouse the soul from the depths and uplift it with vigorous notes of bold reminders of the ways that God will look after those who love Him and place their confidence in Him.
The Psalm, like David's early youthful victory over Goliath, is a sweeping victory of the soul in the face of defeat. Just as David does not just go to meet his foe but runs to meet him, this Psalm runs the soul of the hearer to God, with Whom it longs to be. This exuberance of both the Psalm and David is what commentators suggest exemplifies the kind of spiritual exuberance with which the children of God should meet the obstacles they face (Kaiser, 2011, p. 12). David in his run kills Goliath with a rock hurled from a sling. David then uses Goliath's sword to cut off the Philistine's head. It is a swift, surprising victory.
Moreover, the fact that the Psalmist makes the hymn more personal in its trajectory indicates that the relationship between God and man is a personal one that should be felt by all. It is not just a relationship for kings or persons in high or safe places, for the tone of the Psalm is one in which the Psalmist is found to be in want, as though he were in humble or humiliating circumstances. Danger is a very real presence for the Psalmist. This should further appeal to the universal plight of man, which is felt at all times and in all places -- a degree of longing, of need, of want, that only a spiritual God can satisfy.
The universality of the Psalm is further expressed by the fact that David represents or prefigures Christ, Who is the new Adam and Adam is in a sense every man. Therefore this connection can be drawn. But as McKenzie (2000) states, there is more to David's appeal than just this: the Old Testament contains several books "devoted to David," (McKenzie, 2000, p. 26). Just as the Psalm begins with the theme of shelter, the Biblical story of David begins with the Book of Samuel, with David becoming the anointed one, the new shelter for the spirit or heart of God in man. In 1 Samuel 15, God shows his displeasure with King Saul and tells Samuel the prophet that He has rejected Saul as the king over Israel. This love of God for man is reflected though from man's perspective in Psalm 91. Just as in 1 Samuel 16 the Lord says to Samuel: "I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king" (1 Sam 16:1), Psalm 91 says, "Because he loves me…I will rescue him" (Psalm 91:14). God chooses those who love Him to be his anointed ones, His sons. The son God has chosen, of course, is David in the Book of Samuel. But in the Psalm, the son is everyone who loves God -- it is an appeal to all…
Brueggemann, W. (1984). The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing.
Hayes, J., Holladay, C. (2007). Biblical Exegesis: a beginner's handbook. London:
Westminster John Knox Press.
"Psalm 91 Exegesis" (2015, March 02) Retrieved January 21, 2022, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/psalm-91-exegesis-2149892
"Psalm 91 Exegesis" 02 March 2015. Web.21 January. 2022. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/psalm-91-exegesis-2149892>
"Psalm 91 Exegesis", 02 March 2015, Accessed.21 January. 2022,
Glossolalia, or Speaking in Tongues,
Words: 4590 Length: 15 Pages Topic: Mythology - Religion Paper #: 46535991
Therefore, we may conclude that the speaker has some cognitive function from the structure of the speech, even if it is based on a very basic set of language rules (Samarin 1972 120). Three major linguistic traits emerged from other research into the subjec. Regardless of the geographic area, educational level, or age of the individual, glossolalia consists of: Verbal behavior that has a certain number of consanants and vowels. There seem


Aernoud Bourdrez is a copyright lawyer and negotiator.
He acts on behalf of visual artists, photographers, designers and architects.
He has successfully negotiated in conflicts across more than 40 countries.


text:
Q: Shopify, Liquid, Alpine JS, Ajax can't redirect to cart after firing addToCart Can't figure out why after my ajax addToCart function is called not being redirected to cart?
The product is getting into cart as expected.
I have tried preventingDefault and not preventing.
Here is what response and formData look like in image below.

Here is my product form.

Your Selections

          {% assign product_form_id = 'product-form-' | append: section.id %}
          {%- form 'product',
            product,
            id: product_form_id,
            class: 'form',
            novalidate: 'novalidate',
            data-type: 'add-to-cart-form'
          -%}
            <input
              type="hidden"
              name="id"
              value="{{ product.selected_or_first_available_variant.id }}"
              disabled
            >

              <button
                type="submit"
                @click.prevent="addToCart(items, box_size)"
                :class="full_box ? 'tw-bg-ctaColor' : ''"
                class="tw-bg-white tw-text-brandText tw-flex tw-justify-center tw-py-4 tw-px-6 tw-rounded-full tw-font-bold"
              >

                  ofSelected

Add to cart

              </button>

          {%- endform -%}

Here is my addToCart function.

 {
               return item['title'];
             })

             let selectedItems = itemsToAdd.toString()
             console.log({selectedItems})
             console.log({itemsToAdd})
              let formData = {
              'items': [{
                'id': 44202123100470,
                'quantity': 1,
                'properties': {
                  'Box Items': selectedItems,
                  }
                }]
              };
              console.log({formData})
              fetch(window.Shopify.routes.root + 'cart/add.js', {
                method: 'POST',
                headers: {
                  'Content-Type': 'application/json'
                },
                body: JSON.stringify(formData)
              })
              .then(response => {
                console.log(response)
                return response.json();
              })
              .then((data) => {
                console.log('Success:', data);
              })
              .catch((error) => {
                console.error('Error:', error);
              });
              reset()
            }
          }
        "
        class="tw-mt-12 tw-flex tw-flex-col tw-p-auto tw-bg-brandText tw-opacity-80"
      > ....

A: The way I solved this was to use the Location API add location.href="/cart" in the success promise of the Ajax call.
             fetch(window.Shopify.routes.root + 'cart/add.js', {
                method: 'POST',
                headers: {
                  'Content-Type': 'application/json'
                },
                body: JSON.stringify(formData)
              })
              .then(response => {
                console.log(response)
                return response.json();
              })
              .then((data) => {
               location.href = '/cart';
                console.log('Success:', data);
              })
              .catch((error) => {
                console.error('Error:', error);
              });

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Is there anything more inviting than blueberry pancakes for breakfast? Monday is National Blueberry Pancake Day. Blueberries add a freshness to pancakes and nutrients like vitamin K, vitamin C, manganese and copper. At breakfast, add a few blueberries to your pancake, flapjack or hotcake batter. Adding blueberries to the pancake batter when mixing up the ingredients may result in a bluish hue. To avoid this, add them right after dropping dollops of batter to the hot griddle.
Here is something everyone can support.
Monday is National Blueberry Pancake Day. It is unknown who was originally behind this idea or how Jan. 28 came to be the official day, but it is clearly the work of a genius. Maybe somebody should invite Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell to share a blueberry pancake breakfast.
The confounding issues of should the syrup be warm or room temperature, should syrup be omitted in favor of a blueberry compote and is whipped cream an acceptable topping can easily be resolved as the two Senate leaders are overcome by the temptation of a stack of pancakes just off the griddle. What they will quickly realize is there is no reason for division over the toppings, only personal preference, so nobody is right and nobody is wrong, and they can quickly get on to finding common ground and compromises that move the country forward on other matters.
Perhaps that's a lot to expect from a simple blueberry pancake, buts it's an American food doing its patriotic best.
Having National Blueberry Pancake Day in January seems a bit odd since July 8 is National Blueberry Day, July 11 is National Blueberry Muffin Day and April 28 is National Blueberry Pie Day. If there are any lingering issues between Schumer and McConnell after National Blueberry Pancake Day, let's invite them over on April 28 for National Blueberry Pie Day to finish restoring harmony to the Union.
Heck, with the right blueberry pie, Fox News and MSNBC could get together in a kumbaya moment.
Pancakes have a long and varied background. Analysis of Paleolithic grinding tools reveals evidence of flour made from cattails and ferns. People who study such things believe it is possible a flour/water batter was cooked on a hot rock much like a pancake.
The first real evidence of pancakes dates to 5,300 years ago. The frozen remains of a bronze-age individual, still clothed and equipped, were found high in the Alps in 1991 and the discovery gave an unprecedented first hand look at prehistory.
Dubbed Otzi the Iceman, every aspect of the unfortunate individual was examined, including a review of his stomach contents. Among the substances identified was ground einkorn wheat. The presence of charcoal in the stomach suggests Otzi consumed the flour as a pancake-like food cooked over an open fire.
Pancake cuisine was advanced by the time the Classical Greeks and Romans were cooking the dish. These cultures consumed pancakes with honey.
Elizabethan England expanded the flavoring options to include different spices, rosewater, sherry and apples.
American colonists tinkered with the English recipes to make use of the most common grains in the New World – corn, or maize, flour and buckwheat flour. Despite the name, buckwheat is not in the grass family like the other types of wheat.
A big contribution from America to the pancake was the introduction of maple syrup – a technology the European settlers learned from the native people.
Pancake is a flat cake made of a thin batter and cooked on a griddle on both sides. Acceptable synonyms are flapjacks and griddlecakes.
Johnnycake is a bread made with cornmeal.
Hoecake is a small cake made of cornmeal.
Crepes are technically a pancake since they are made from a batter and cooked in a pan. Crepes, though, are quite thin and lack the puffy texture and hearty bulk of a pancake.
Like real maple syrup, blueberries are the other great American contribution to pancakes. Blueberries are a native fruit and were an important food source for indigenous people living in what is now the Northeastern United States. The fruits were eaten fresh, dried for use during the winter and frequently included as part of the mixture when making pemmican.
Blueberries are probably the healthiest part of a pancake breakfast, but they are too few in number to make the claim this is a healthy meal. They rank the highest of any fruit for antioxidants and a cup provides 14 percent of the daily fiber requirement and nearly one-fourth of the recommended daily dose of vitamin C. That same cup of blueberries also provides 36 percent of the daily recommended intake of vitamin K and is a source of manganese, vitamin B6, thiamine, riboflavin, vitamin E and copper.
Other benefits attributed to consuming blueberries are protection against some cancers, help with weight loss, boosting brain health, alleviating inflammation, supporting digestion and promoting heart health.
Come Monday, why not cook up a stack of this comfort food for breakfast or supper. By the way, true maple syrup, not the artificial stuff, has to be served warm. source for indigenous people living in what is now the Northeastern United States. The fruits were eaten fresh, dried for use during the winter and frequently included as part of the mixture when making pemmican.
Come Monday, why not cook up a stack of this comfort food for breakfast or supper. By the way, true maple syrup, not the artificial stuff, is best served warm.


On the Reevoo blog lately, we've been talking a lot about getting more natural with the way we request content and feedback from customers.
It comes from an insight that popped up in a few recent chats with our clients and tech partners.
We find that a lot of them are battling survey fatigue.
Basically, in the search for more and better user-generated content, marketers have been battering customers with all kinds of surveys. There's limited strategy behind those surveys and it's leading to people shutting them out altogether.
That's a real shame, because there are some great benefits to collecting this stuff.
Most current methods of collecting feedback are ineffective. They're too vague, can't be actioned – and often the outputs don't even match up with your company's internal processes, so different departments of the company can have wildly different views on how they're performing.
Businesses tend to add a new method of collecting feedback instead of updating the ones that already exist. So the same customer ends up getting a few different requests for feedback from the same company, sometimes even about the same product.
The data you collect from your customers – whether it's satisfaction scores or stories and photos – delivers huge business benefits if used in the right way.
Consolidating all your internal feedback and your inspiring content collection into one touchpoint CAN be done – in fact, it's pretty easy if you follow some general principles.
Ok, here's the deal. You get the first three now.
If you like them, the next three are in our latest ebook. It's crammed full of original stats and there are loads of insights in it too – definitely worth the download.
Don't just ask questions for the sake of it. Your questions should always link back to something within the business you can change. What will you do with the answers or the content?
Don't just ask generic questions – ask about specific details of what you sell and how you sell it. You can use this feedback to fine-tune your products and the customer experience.
Some issues can be solved with feedback. Others, like perception issues, can be solved by using it.
There you go. The rest of your checklist is waiting for you in the ebook, How to collect more content with less surveys. It's got everything you need to implement the perfect customer feedback strategy.
We at SentiSum suggest that you download it.


Arctic Ocean. Sedna is between 1,200 and 1,600 km (700 and 1,000 miles) in diameter, and it was found to have a highly elliptical orbit, which took it from 76 AU to 981 AU and back in a period of 12,159 years.
Observations of Sedna quickly raised a number of puzzling questions. Astronomers had thought that all objects in the outer solar system would be icy and therefore white or gray in appearance, but Sedna was almost as red as Mars. Its extremely elliptical orbit resembled the orbits of objects thought to exist in the Oort cloud. Sedna, however, was observed at a distance 10 times closer than the predicted inner edge of the Oort cloud. The proposal that Sedna had been kicked toward the inner solar system by the gravitation of a passing star is an idea that could account for its orbit.


text:
Ouleus fridericus is een vlinder uit de familie van de dikkopjes (Hesperiidae). De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1832 door Geyer.

Dikkopjes


The world has a CO2 problem – there is not enough free CO2 in the atmosphere, to maximise food production, alleviate world hunger, green deserts, and to attempt to hold off the next ice age. But if my calculation is correct, raising CO2 to a safer level would be surprisingly affordable.
Although a lot of nonsense has been written about CO2 harming plant growth, the reality is commercial greenhouse growers maintain elevated CO2 levels of around 1000ppm, because one of the most effective means of promoting plant growth is to make sure plants get enough CO2 – enough being defined as a significantly higher concentration than is currently available in the atmosphere.
The world is also almost certainly teetering on the brink of the next glaciation. I'm not suggesting it will start tomorrow, but interglacials, of the kind we are currently experiencing, typically only last 10-15,000 years. We are well past the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the peak of our current interglacial. Without serious anthropogenic intervention, it is all downhill from here. There is no guarantee raising CO2 will prevent or mitigate the slide into the next glaciation period, but given the catastrophic consequences the coming ice age will have on human civilisation, it has to be worth a try.


text:
Glittering generalities an unasked questions
Jan 15, 2023 Jan 15, 2023 ~ Peter A Bell
In the party-political discourse around Scotland's constitutional issue, what passes for variety is the difference between the disappointments that are anticipated and those which come as something of a surprise to even the most cynical among us. As an example of the latter category, we might look to Murdo Fraser's reaction to the Pope's suggestion that said issue had been resolved by 'the English'. Fraser, a man known, shall we say, for his strong Protestant ethic in all matters other than work, Tweeted,
God bless Pope Francis https://t.co/WKL7uSDHQI
— Murdo Fraser (@murdo_fraser) January 13, 2023
I don't do religion. But I am reliably informed that it is unusual for someone of Murdo Fraser's persuasion to ask the Protestant God to look kindly upon the Catholic Pope. I cannot testify from personal observation, but I am assured that 'God bless the Pope!' is among the less commonly heard phrases chanted by supporters of the Rangers football team. This explains the surprise. The disappointment being that Murdo Fraser is a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
The anticipated disappointments arose from news about the Special Democracy Conference that the SNP has pencilled in for March of this year, and news from the special independence national assembly that Alba Party has just held. Both events purport to be for the purpose of "full and open" debate about the way forward for Scotland's cause. As expected, the Alba event has produced nothing new and the SNP appears to have ensured that their event won't produce anything new either.
We await full details of what was discussed at the Alba conference. But from Alex Salmond's reported remarks it seems safe to assume that the party came out of the event the same as it went in. They want a plebiscitary election.
The SNP event is yet to happen, but the announcement of the resolution to be 'debated' makes it perfectly clear what they want. They want a plebiscitary election.
Given this similarity, you might suppose the parties could put up a united front. That's not happening. While they agree on the matter of a de facto referendum, they differ sufficiently on detail to ensure continuing 'rivalry'. Which is not to say that the details on which they differ are insignificant. The issue of time enters the equation, as ever. While the SNP gives the impression of being happy to put off the de facto referendum to the latest possible date, Alba wants it at the earliest possible date. While Sturgeon's original unconsidered suggestion of using the next UK general election as a de facto referendum remains front and centre in the planned conference debate, the inclusion of the 2026 Holyrood election as an option seems to confirm that she is looking for a way out of her 'Plan A' for 'Plan B'.
Rightly so. Even if we accept the notion that a plebiscitary election might further Scotland's cause ─ which I do not ─ the arguments against using a Westminster election are powerful and the arguments for choosing a Scottish Parliament election in preference very persuasive. What the change of tack confirms is that barely a moment's thought went into the 'plan' announced Sturgeon when she revealed her intention to have the draft Referendum Bill referred to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) ─ another thing explicable only as an idea hatched in haste, if not panic. Sturgeon had to do something. More accurately, she had to do nothing while using her considerable presentational skills to make it appear as something.
Be that as it may, we are where we are. It seems likely that the SNP will opt for the Holyrood election as the de facto referendum. Sturgeon will be relieved to get out of her original plan without being seen to do a screeching U-turn on the matter. She won't have to admit that using a Westminster election was always a daft idea. At the same time, she will hold up the decision to go with a Holyrood election as an example of her party's internal democracy in action. Something which her loyal supporters can use as a response to critics who point to the way the party's internal democracy has diminished under Sturgeon's leadership. Job done!
Assuming the SNP conference goes as expected, we are back to a state of perfect alignment between them and Alba, with both now wanting to use a Holyrood election as the de facto referendum. Although the SNP still wants to use the UK general election first, with the Holyrood election as a second bite of the cherry should they fail to get their teeth into the first one. United front? Dinnae be daft! While the SNP is talking about a Westminster election which could be as late as autumn 2024 then the Holyrood election scheduled for 2026, Alba wants to use some parliamentary jiggery-pokery to force an extraordinary election in October 2023. Like all of Alba's plans, this one is totally reliant on the cooperation of the SNP. Much as all the pro-independence parties' plans are dependent on the goodwill of the British state. And with much the same expectation of coming to fruition.
Like all Alba's demands of the SNP, this one looks to be inviting refusal which can then be used as a cudgel with which the Alba tribe can assail the SNP tribe on the social media battleground. The Alba idea is to use the Scottish Parliament's powers to "alter the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 which govern how the Parliament is run", as explained by Stu Campbell at Wings Over Scotland. Where currently two-thirds of MSP votes is required for the Parliament to dissolve itself and force an extraordinary general election, this could make a simple majority sufficient. All quite doable. But not without the political will of the party of government ─ the SNP/SGP alliance. And that's where it starts to look like rather less of a practicable idea.
Alba Party has no power; no leverage and negligible influence. This is not intended to belittle the party. It is simply a statement of fact. The SNP, by contrast, has all the power and can pretty much do as it pleases. In such circumstances, logic bids us assume that the SNP preference will prevail at all times. We must therefore ask why early dissolution of the Parliament might be the SNP's preferred course of action. I can think of no reason why they would favour early dissolution. On the contrary, the now obvious fact that there has been no planning or preparation means that the SNP's preference must be to play for time ─ not so much to afford them time to think as to defer the moment when it becomes impossible to conceal the fact that there has been no strategic thinking at all in Sturgeon's SNP.
Thus, it is all but certain that, when all the special conferences are done and the chairs stacked, what we can expect to emerge is a 'plan' to put off delivery of 'indyref2' for more than three years. At which time, it won't actually be a referendum which is delivered, but an election pretending to be a referendum. The very terms 'referendum' and 'democracy' and even 'independence' have been added to the mass of glittering generalities deployed by politicians to distract and deflect from what are the important details of the proposals common to both the SNP and Alba and common to both a Westminster and a Holyrood de facto referendum. There are a multitude of questions that remain unasked concerning the precise form and purpose of the proposed de facto referendum, regardless of who is proposing it or what date they have in mind.
Let's take a look at what the two parties are saying. There are two parts to what I suppose we must refer to as the draft resolution to be put to the SNP's non-urgent emergency assembly. Emphasis is mine.
If a majority of those voting in the election vote SNP – or if the combined votes for the SNP and any other party with which it has reached a pro-independence agreement in advance of the election constitute a majority of votes cast – we will consider that a mandate to enter negotiations with the UK Government to secure independence.
The SNP will make clear that it is asking people to vote SNP in that election to indicate support for a referendum.
If the SNP wins a majority of Scottish seats, it will take the demand for the necessary transfer of power to the UK Government.
Should that demand – backed by the Scottish people – be denied again, the SNP will contest the Scottish Parliament election in 2026 as a de facto referendum.
It is always hard to tell what Alba is proposing because most of their spokespersons and almost all of their supporters talk of nothing but the SNP. Ask what Alba policy is and you'll be told what SNP policy isn't. The party's website is no help. But there is this from the page promoting the special assembly. In what appears to be an official strategy paper presented to the assembly, under the heading 'Recommence Campaign for a Section 30 Order' we find the following,
The Supreme Court ruling has no impact on the ability to establish the section 30 route to independence. There are a minimum of four parliamentary mandates for a referendum and the majority feeling of the meeting was that Westminster should not be let off this hook.
Independence Strategy Paper to ALBA Special Assembly
This seems to be in keeping with Alba's 2021 election manifesto.
The answer to one of the unasked questions is that what Alba and the SNP/SGP present as an independence referendum not only isn't a referendum, it isn't about independence at all. Look behind all the glittering generalities and you find all our leading politicians acceding to the British state's asserted supremacy. They are all set on compromising the sovereignty of Scotland's people by allowing the British state a veto on the exercise of our right of self-determination. None of them is proposing a referendum on independence. What they are talking about is a referendum on begging the British Prime Minister's permission to do something we have an inalienable right to do. It is not possible that the Scottish people can be sovereign and subject to the whim of what is effectively a foreign government.
If, as I will insist with my last breath, the people of Scotland are sovereign and we vote Yes in a genuine independence referendum then that is an end to the matter. Nobody can gainsay that choice. It is as if carved in stone. It is the will of the people and that overrules all else.
Yet both Alba and the SNP disagree. They say that voting Yes in what they tell us is an independence referendum means only that we are endorsing their intention to trade our sovereignty for worthless assurances of cooperation from the British political elite in a process intended to achieve something to which they are fanatically opposed. As far as our political leaders are concerned, when we think we're expressing our wish to restore Scotland's independence, what we are actually doing is giving our agreement to them inviting the British state to interfere in our exercise of our right of self-determination.
What is worse is that the circumstances dictate that we must vote Yes ─ or whatever substitutes for Yes in a de facto referendum ─ because the consequences of voting No would be catastrophic. This results in the insanely ludicrous situation where a vote that is supposed to be for restoring our nation's independence becomes a vote against the sovereignty of Scotland's people and for the sovereignty of the British parliament.
As far as I can tell as I was unable to attend, no other options were even discussed by the Alba assembly that was supposed to be about finding "the way ahead for Scottish Independence". It's a certainty the SNP leadership won't allow any fresh thinking to enter their domain. I recently summarised the constitutional issue strategies of all the parties.
Scottish National Party (SNP)
By various means, attempt to persuade the British government to grant a Section 30 order.
Scottish Green Party (Scottish Greens)
Alba Party (Alba)
British Conservative Party (Tories)
Preserve the Union at any cost.
British Labour Party (Labour)
British Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems)
That is a recipe for aridity of discourse and paralysis of action. This is where our politicians have led us. Scotland's cause is being failed or betrayed by our entire political class. And they're being allowed to get away with it.
Posted in Politics, Uncategorized Alba PartyreferendumSNP
‹ PreviousThe anticipated anti-climax
Next ›The war against truth
26 thoughts on "Glittering generalities an unasked questions"
JSM says:
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
Mike Fenwick says:
Peter … coverage of the Alba event thanks to Independence Live here:
No use to me, Mike. I want transcripts and official statements in writing. I want to be able to read the words.
PS: Posted that link solely because I am an Admin on Indy/Live, please see it as impartial on that basis – and sorry it became as large, I didn't realise that would happen when posting.
Peter – there is 1 major key difference a lot wider than a fag paper (are we still allowed to say fag ?) SNP policy as far as I can see is to use the pleb election to enable a referendum. ALBA policy is to use the pleb election as a mandate to begin independence negotiations. The preferred timescales are also very different, SNP 2026 , ALBA 2023 – citing the "no ifs, no buts" (fags again) announcement. Final point – something very different was proposed as a possible route at the ALBA conference yesterday – you can probably guess what it was. ALBA will hold a Nat Council meeting mid-Feb to finalise its policy on this.
Robert Martin says:
Rather than guess, could you please enlighten me on the Alba possible alternative route.
I address these points in the article. Given that both Alba and the SNP remain wedded to the Section 30 process, by definition both can only be talking about using the plebiscitary election to enable a referendum IF their British superiors will allow it.
In the article, I quote the SNP draft resolution.
Forgive the 'shouting' but I need to highlight that final part. Which, if I am not mistaken, is precisely the same as your "a mandate to begin independence negotiations". Except for the fact that I have the SNP's statement in writing while I have yet to see any unequivocal statement of anything from Alba. Which may be policy, of course. The less the party actually says, the more its members and supporters are free to make up whatever is expedient. If nothing is committed to a permanent record then anything can be claimed ─ or denied.
I referred to the different timescales in the article. Although I am realistic enough to also note that it's hardly a coin-toss as to whose timescale will prevail. As you seem to have missed that bit, I'll repeat it here.
"Alba Party has no power; no leverage and negligible influence. This is not intended to belittle the party. It is simply a statement of fact. The SNP, by contrast, has all the power and can pretty much do as it pleases. In such circumstances, logic bids us assume that the SNP preference will prevail at all times."
I don't do the kind of fantasy politics in which the underdog wins in the end for no better reason than that they are the underdog and their victory makes good theatre.
I have no idea as to what that "something very different" and, as I was unable to attend, no way of knowing. Experience tells me it's unlikely I'll see anything in print or pixels about it from Alba. I know it couldn't have been #ScottishUDI. You can probably guess why. But I won't leave you hanging. There is nobody better qualified than myself to explain the thinking behind #ScottishUDI. I was not invited to speak. Nor did anyone from Alba contact me to seek my input. This is NOT to say that I 'own' the idea and nobody else gets to talk about it. It is merely to say that if people do want to talk about #ScottishUDI they should first seek to be as well-informed as possible.
I want to hear an explicit, unequivocal and OFFICIAL repudiation of the Section 30 process before I'm prepared to accept any party as the 'party of independence'. You might pass that on to the Alba NEC. I suspect that would be just as pointless as passing it on to the SNP's NEC.
aLurker says:
Here is a youtube link to the Alba "Special Assembly "
starts around 15 minutes in.
I don't have the free time right now to sit through all 2 hours 30 minutes.
Perhaps if someone here does watch it they could post a comment
summarising noteable utterances/developments, with timestamp(s)?
I'm never going to have 2hrs 30mins to watch something when I'll be no further forward afterwards. It's official policy and position statement I want to see. And I want them in writing so I can study them. Political parties should be open to scrutiny.
There is no ALBA official policy yet. The 2 events in Perth and Edinburgh are to feed in thoughts & ideas from ALBA members and others – the meetings were open to all – imagine ! ALBA policy will be discussed (maybe not finalised) at a meeting of Nat Council in mid Feb, open to ALBA delegates only. ALBA is not wedded to the section 30 process , but as long as it remains an option for the scottish government is not prepared to rule it out. One assumption you made Peter which is totally incorrect is that ALBA would see a de-facto referendum as a means to enable a successful S30 application – definitely not. A de-facto referendum for ALBA if successful is a vote to commence independence negotiations – I expect this to be confirmed at the Nat Council meet in Feb.
But there is an "official policy". Having committed to the Section 30 process ─ see the 2021 election manifesto ─ that remains Alba policy until it is changed. If the party doesn't explicitly repudiate the Section 30 process, then the stench of it will linger. That's why repudiation of Section 30 is right at the top of the #ManifestoForIndependence, remember?
Ding Dong says:
'It seems likely that the SNP will go for the Holyrood option'
I think it is more than 'likely' otherwise Sturgeon doesn't get out of the predicament she put herself in. So it looks like 2026 before anything happens. And that amounts to nothing in practical terms.
Your route to freedom looks increasingly more attractive. But with Alba and the SNP/Greens ploughing the same furrow, who is going to drive the car to the destination?
Precisely the thought that I was considering how best to express. I thought maybe a situation vacant ad – Wanted: Party of Independence – Must be serious about restoring Scotland's independence. No Section 30 time-wasters! Previous applicants (SNP, Alba) need not reapply, unless they really enjoy being told to fuck off.
What's to be done? (Vladimir Lenin).
Are the Bolsheviks allowed to apply for the job?
A bit of oomph is needed from somewhere or Scotland stagnates – even more than it has over the past 8 years or so.
Ha Ha, given the premature (I'm being kind – it is Sunday) nature of your assumptions about ALBA policy on independence maybe you should wait a week or two before posting the wanted ad.
Wait and see, eh? Well, we've had a lot of practice. No change.
Robert Booth says:
What Ding Dong wrote.
It is all so terribly depressing as nothing will happen after 2026 either… Bow down to the Section 30. Vote SNP or there is no hope. Vote SNP and there is no hope either. Vote Alba and there is no hope. Give up hope and there is no hope. Its hopeless! I hope I am wrong but I have a feeling I ain't.
I find it unfortunate that SNP didn't keep with the simple majority of MPs elected to Westminster, to demand Independence, as used to be the policy.
Everyone clearly understood that policy. Even Margaret Thatcher!
But no one understands SNP policy today.
As for ALBA, I have become very disappointed in their own approach, which as you say Peter, isn't any better.
Regards MSP Fraser of the tories, and The National story on the Pope, 2 things. First, Pope Bergolio was an absolute fool (and he often is) to mention the subject and while I am no fan of the present Pope, that The National spun the Pope's words in certain way like it did, was quite wrong.
The National does itself no favors when it deliberately misrepresents what was said, or intended to be understood. And with this Pope, he oftentimes speaks in such a manner, we have to be careful what he means.
We would expect journalists worth their calling to do better.
As for the insane tory MSP, we don't expect any better from that creep!
If the Pope can't express himself without leaving his utterances open to very different interpretations then maybe he shouldn't be allowed to speak to the media.
Aye Peter, the Pope and the maist o' the elected political class, especially them holed up in Holyrood.
lorncal says:
I don't know what ALBA will do in February, Peter, but we can be fairly sure that the SNP will slither out of their 2023 commitment to a pleb GE election. It just would not wash, anyway.
The SC of the UK ruling went way, way beyond its remit and the parameters of the case to include Quebec and Catalunya in its deliberations. Effectively, the court was saying that Westminster is sovereign in all and every circumstance and there is no way, no route for Scotland to leave the Union. That should have been the point at which Sturgeon crashed the SG and called an election because that was real, measurable interference in natural justice, let alone any other kind. She did nothing but bleat, as per, and the whole thing was kicked back into the long grass until this March conference.
If the SNP/Greens hang on to the S30 nonsense, then ALBA will, too, always open to a loose alliance with said SNP/Greens. Ruling it out would stymie any last lingering hope of sanity prevailing, or, at any rate, trigger a drop in SNP self-interest. However, a S30 Order is not ALBA policy as such, and it is beginning to adopt the all-purpose, multi-faceted approach to any and all routes open to us – which is sensible. I'm not on Twitter, but I dip in occasionally if I get a tip-off that something interesting is happening. Chris Law is getting a hammering from Twitter followers for trying to claim that, if Sunak goes for a S35 against the Scottish GRR, it would be a huge interference in Holyrood legislation. He is being laughed out of court and, to boot, many of those on Twitter who are Scots, are calling for Sunak to bring it on and crush this legislation precisely because the Scottish population is is totally opposed by a huge majority.
It will be very interesting to see how the SNP and Greens defend their position on this legislation because that would require them to defend their position on the impact of the legislation on UK legislation which would prove to be profound – as they were warned. I have no doubt that, unlike Holyrood, Westminster will have the evidence to hand. So, do they throw all females and children in Scotland and the UK under the bus in an effort to show that Westminster is interfering? Dear me. I'll give her a few weeks maximum if this S35 Order goes ahead, slightly longer if it doesn't. Either way, she has met her nemesis. If ALBA has any sense, it will emphasise the huge gulf on this issue between itself and the SNP/Greens, and keep on hammering in the wedge. After Sturgeon has departed, only sustained pressure on the SNP will force it to come to terms with the other independence parties. If not, it cannot survive. It does not deserve to, but, as you keep pointing out, rightly, it is the only show on the road at the minute. That will not always be the case.
Your mention of sturgeon 2crashing" the Scottish Government in response to the UK Supreme Court ruling yet again put me in mind of Norway breaking the Union with Sweden. That is where we find the closest parallel to Scotland's situation. Had referral of the draft Referendum Bill been done for this purpose, I would have hailed it is an excellent bit of politicking. But if that had ever been the intention then the Referendum Bill would surely not have been so weak. She'd have wanted it to be clear(er) that it was Scotland's right of self-determination that was being denied. As things stand, it could be argued that our right of self-determination was not denied because what was proposed in the Bill was not an exercise of our right of self-determination.
That's all just war-gaming in our heads, of course. But it would be good if somebody in the SNP/Scottish Government could learn to do this.
I strongly suspect you're correct about Alba sticking with its present commitment to the Section 30 process. Perhaps, however, you are being over-generous in attributing this to a desire to keep open the possibility of some kind of "alliance" with the SNP/Greens. You'd have to be seriously delusional to imagine that remains a possibility after the way BOTH parties have behaved since Alba was launched. I'd put it down to political cowardice. Another thing the two parties have in common.
The left in Scotland imagines the people want radical solutions. They don't. As a populace, we like radical talk, but back away when it comes to radical action. We've bred timid politicians as a result.
I'm a bit disappointed with Chris Law. I thought he would be more ready to stand up to Sturgeon's clique. We cannot know what kind of pressure he is under. The same goes for other SNP MPs and MSPs.
The GRR thing remains an inexplicable complication. If this is the ground on which Sturgeon has chosen to confront the British establishment, having eschewed the opportunity of the UKSC ruling, then she is too stupid to survive another day. In reality, I just don't see her as having the capacity for that kind of forward-thinking. I get the impression of something closer to panicked flailing than Machiavellian plotting.
I don't think I'm delusional about an alliance, Peter. I know, and ALBA knows, that this is all but impossible with the SNP, but it keeps the window open a crack, I suppose, and avoids outright hostilities. As you say, there was never any intention that the SC of the UK court would bring forward anything different from what it did. That it went so much further could have been an opportunity, but I think we all have to accept that it is a case of a serious lack of nous combined with a serious lack of strategy, together intended to procrastinate forever on independence. I doubt that the GRR was a plan for confronting the UKG. It would show a determination that the SNP/Greens simply do not have or intend to have, a cunning that has been noticeable by its absence from SNP circles. I am beginning to wonder if they have seriously believed that this bilge would seduce the Scottish public, followed by the English/Welsh public in a kind of naive 'just be kind' sort of utterly middle-class way? If so, they have seriously underestimated the bulk of the Scottish population, not to mention the rest of the UK's population. The only people it appears to have seduced are those politicians who have not even worked out the implications for the whole of the UK. Sex and/or money, the two great trip wires for politicians and those in lofty positions. In this instance, I think it might be both, given that paraphilias are far more prevalent than once believed and that the American billionaires backing this stuff might appeal to the SNP's latent neoliberalism. The Greens as mad as a box of frogs.
surfsensei says:
I might reluctantly concede that a decision to make the 2026 Holyrood election the trigger to withdraw from the Union could be a pragmatic one if the intervening time was actually going to be used to make concrete and strategic preparations for, if necessary, declaring independence unilaterally; which seems to me an essential intention before attempting to negotiate with Westminster.
Preparations such as: ensuring control over money raised in taxes before sending it to WM, restoring direct shipping to/from EU for essential imports and exports, beginning to enable Scottish control of the renewable energy generation and ensuring Scotland gets the benefits.. etc… all of which should, of course, have been done in the quieter years since 2014…
But of course it won't, I have seen no sign of any effective strategic thinking and planning in any level of UK and Scottish national/regional government in the last few decades.
I'm still glad to have made the move to Scotland when I did, but I have no confidence in any of the present batch of political parties doing anything other than (metaphorically, mostly) filling their pockets before they fall enough out of favour to have to retire to the executive board/ after-dinner circuit.
I am trying to reduce mental inflammation over this by focusing on making things in my small circle of influence as good as they can be.. perhaps in the end that's all we can actually do while staying sane. Thank you (all) for an excellent article and comments. Best wishes.
alfbaird says:
The Scots may yet surprise you, and secure liberation. Or maybe they will simply continue to perish. These are the only two possible outcomes.
I'm hoping for the former, just not depending on it. Interesting times..