pap

So if you go bald, you'll be a prominent shiny slaphead? Sounds good, Lex

I've discussed this recently in the real world. The general plusses for being short are :- 1) It doesn't creep up on you. 2) Air travel / any sort of restricted space 3) Greater range of clothing ( Adams is viable! ) However, the negatives are:- 1) Limited range of women (very sad) 2) Tall people at concerts 3) Anything on a top shelf The thing is with "bald" is that it happens suddenly and unexpectedly, and can render a previously proud man as a hair-obsessed thatch-hunter. Does the lifelong misery of being short trump the traumatic experience of losing all your hair?

Lifelong short arse. Actually grew the hair to annoy a couple of baldies, initially

Is it better to be short or bald? * Short and bald men: sorry, this question is not for you. Try and get through it.

A previous employer made all the management do the Belbin Personality Tests. I genuinely thought it was a load of crap, but it ended up describing my role pretty well. I'm a shaper, apparently*. * Belbin euphemism for aggressive shíts that drag things to completion, even if everyone else is kicking and screaming

If we're to believe some of the press, the yes vote is driven by dissatisfaction with Westminster as much as any burning desire for independence. The underlying question involves whether the Westminster government is the best government for the Scots. That's a question that many parts of the country will rightfully ask. Irrespective of result, I think we can expect all of the nations to be clamouring for more powers. I also think that there is a strong argument which suggests that the Westminster government is failing in many other parts of England. Salmond is an opportunist, but would never got as far as he did without the indifference and incompetence of the Westminster government. A big part of their vote isn't even nationalist per se; the electorate was simply attracted by SNP policy, which was attractive to families and crucially, was actually implemented. So immediately, Salmond can legitimately point to a huge difference of priorities. We care about your kids and your health; Westminster doesn't. There is a huge debate to be had over the legitimacy of the Westminster government, and its fitness for purpose in governing the whole island. Thanks to this referendum, think it may happen sooner rather than later.

Not actually sure Cameron has got much else in his locker. He actually does "sincere" very well when he wants to; it's one of his few positive traits. Now is not the time for half-measures. Ties into the point above. Prostration before the Scottish electorate is probably his best move. Will deserve the plaudits if he manages to turn it around.

Heard something about this on one of my podcasts, Football Weekly, I think. Apparently the Indians already have a league. This is seen as a bit of an expensive usurpin' upstart in some circles.

Are they more or less boring than a man decrying them as boring? Touché!

They're there to stimulate debate. Have you heard of Twitter?

Interesting piece here. Scotland's referendum is Britain's reinvention. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2014/sep/10/scotland-referendum-britain-independence-vote

Hot lunch holds the record for most disgusting thing my missus' cackling coven of office witches have ever heard of. Breading barely registered. In fact, it disappointed. I had to put it in a festival toilet context to get a reaction.

You could have both. http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/ http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf For that to be true though, a modern fighter jet would need to be equipped with air-to-air missiles and some kind of cannon. Hasn't been true since 1942, apparently * * Fun quiz for military fans: How many fighter jets in active service lack any kind of ballistic ordnance whatsoever? I have a "friend" that could benefit from the information.

Considering a few positives of Scottish Independence and wondering how much an actual, meaningful border might benefit places like Cumbria and Northumberland. Would rUK would need some kind of northern military frontier? Somewhat less seriously, how about a large new infrastructure project to keep the Scottish wildlings out? And perhaps a Night's Watch instead of giving G4S money to lock people up?* * Note: that's GoT's Night's Watch, not Babylon 5's Nightwátch. Entirely different things.

Scotch eggs aren't real Scotch eggs unless they've been breathed on by a drunken Glaswegian shouting "you wee eggy bastard" Source: Daily Mirror Book of Facts : Did you know? 2014 edition. Apparently where University Challenge get all of their questions.

How? What's the process? What are the precedents? You're talking crap on this one, mate.

Well, in your example, it's the idea that the UK would lose its status as permanent member of the UN Security council on account of having no nukes, which incidentally, only the US really did at the time of the Permanent Five's creation. It wasn't until 1949, four years after the formation of the UN, that nuclear arms proliferated beyond one state. The problem with making as many unsubstantiated claims as you do is that many of them fall well outside of your "ooer, can't talk about it, I'm too important, security cleared and worldly" stance you use to cower away from debate. The formation and potential dissolution of the UN permanent security council falls well outside, I'd say - given that most UN policies are a matter of public record. That being the case, perhaps sir can answer the original question and explain how exactly the UK would lose its P5 status in the event of giving up nukes.

Wherever it is, they need better in-house training. Their employees seem spectacularly ill-informed.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain how this possibility may manifest itself. Membership of the Security Council was never about having nukes. It was about ensuring that the main victors of the Second World War couldn't have their interests threatened by the consensus of other nations, no matter how many vote against them. Personally I think you're naive for describing the British nuclear deterrent as "independent". Push comes to shove, we don't even know if the American-supplied technology would work.

The UK will not lose its place as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council just because it doesn't have nukes.

Shame. I thought it might be a revival of this classic show.

Devo Supermax for a no vote, apparently. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/scotland-promised-devo-supermax-london-spooked "London is spooked".

The choice of language and the mere fact that we're speculating about this speaks volumes. Shouldn't we have a more prescriptive explanation than "high energy objects" at this point?

Now now hypo, you know I don't like that word.