milton75

Mrs Brown's Boys is pretty much the worst thing ever made. Everyone involved should be put to sleep.

Saw Godzilla on a giant 3D IMAX affair, and enjoyed it a lot. Thought it was pretty faithful to the mythos. Some hammy acting, but the big lizard was the star, so that's fine. 8/10

Guardians of the Galaxy looks great imo, and opens up all the cosmic fun. Is the Silver Surfer owned by Fox due to the Fantastic Four though? Regarding Superman, I don't really enjoy Donner's films anymore. There are still great moments, but I suspect nostalgia is making them more enjoyable for me than the films themselves. Shocking to say, but if I was to be forced to watch any Superman film, I would always go straight for III. Totally ridiculous, but fun from start to finish.

I'd love it if this was a high-budget HBO effort. Tim Roth starring. Sadly, I suspect it won't be.

Not that it matters, seeing as you're being deliberately obtuse, but Michael Forsyth's boss, John Mayor, who was Prime Minister of the UK, also shared the policy that there would be no Scottish Devolved Parliament. http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page2049.html

I already answered it. I said that I recalled the statement from Forsyth and further I advised you that, without trawling newspapers (that would only be available on archive sites, as this was prior to them having internet editions) the exact quote would be difficult to find. Instead I quoted Forsyth making reference to what had been said. Did I or did I not say both of these things? I believe I did, so your "third time of asking/difficult question" schtick seems incongruous. Let me suggest that if you enjoy taking a supercilious stance, you reserve doing so for occasions in which it will succeed. Do you doubt the veracity of this, and do you allege that Forsyth's recollection in incorrect?

So you don't take Forsyth's quote as evidence? Please explain why.

Sorry, but you're talking shit. I don't know your age, but if you were old enough to be engaged in politics in the 1990s, and indeed before that during Thatcher's tenure, you will remember innumerate assertions that devolution would not happen. Do you deny that this is the case? As I've already pointed out, unless, by some chance, this has been archived in newspapers or Hansard, it's not easy to link to. However, within a 2-second google, I was able to reference Forsyth discussing the fact that, in his opinion, Scots were fed up of being told "you can't have that" (given that he was Scottish Secretary, I would argue his knowledge of what the government line was might just be better than yours or mine). Now let's get to the nub of this: are you asking because you actually care, or are you asking because you don't like the fact that I've pointed out that unionist predictions have so far gone awry? The polls are only moving in one direction, and your keenness to grub around trying to pick holes in a minor point only serves to make you appear palpably worried that the argument is being lost.

As long as it's a predictable policy, I'm happy enough to expect it and dance the dance!

Well, firstly it wasn't first proposed by that Labour administration. It had been discussed extensively, and the standard chat from the Unionist government of the time was that it wouldn't happen. Secondly, I didn't say anything about the polling for the devolution referendum. Do I have to put every point in separate posts to avoid the risk of someone deliberately conflating and misrepresenting them?

It was said umpteen times in the 90s that I recall. Michael Forsyth being one I remember, him being my MP at the time. Pretty sure it was the general consensus, although I've no idea how to demonstrate this unless it comes up in an archived newspaper search or Hansard. I remember Waldegrave discussing it too. Edited to add - you can find reference to this being the chat fairly easily. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-truth-about-michael-forsyth-the-tories-and-devolution.23097598

For most of the time up till the last election, we were regularly informed across the spread of polls that Labour were going to beat the SNP - in some cases this was presented as a significant win on the horizon. In the months up to the election, the polls narrowed, and some polling outlets conceded that it was close. Not that I'm suggesting deliberate bias or anything, but it seemed curious that such a wealth of "SNP to lose" information was being presented to us, when they in fact went on to win - by a margin that supposedly should not have been at all likely under our system. So far we have variously been told that: - There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament - The SNP will never win - No party will gain an overall majority. I personally welcome the negative polling. If the Unionist track record continues with such success in their predictions, I look forward to the result.