On the header, after having spent a weekend in Manchester and talking about BJ with a variety of people (admittedly a small sample), I’m more convinced that @TSE is wrong.
Both folks - who do switch their votes or just don’t vote if they don’t like anyone - said they are sticking with Boris. Their views was that the parties thing was overblown. More on topic, they both were disdainful of Starmer and Labour.
I then went out with some old friends, two definitely old school Labour (but also not woke - my school friend would be called a TERF) and one who voted for Brexit. All of them said they felt Boris was a leader whereas Starmer wasn’t. They all pointed out the importance of portraying optimism and an upbeat message, and they felt BJ had that and Starmer didn’t. Interestingly, Blair’s name came up and the women talked about how his smiling was a definite plus for them, at least at first.
That didn’t blind them to his faults nor that the Government had cocked up badly on several fronts. But they would much rather have BJ as PM than Starmer. Ironically, the one who was most anti-BJ was the Brexiteer because she didn’t want to be “ruled by toffs”.
PS enthusiasm for Rishi was low. All felt he was untrustworthy and the word ‘sneaky’ came up more than once. I’m not sure Rishi would do much for the Tories outside places like St Albans and, as pointed out, seats with large Indian populations.
That's disappointing news from Manchester. I guess all the Labour MPs in that fine city will lose their seats at the next GE then.
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
I bet no-one can come up with one.
Scotland gains enormously from being in a Union with the rest of the UK. It gives us unrestricted access to a much larger market. It give our young opportunities that they would not otherwise have. It gives us, through the Union, some significance in the world. It allows us a degree of cross subsidy in harder times. When North Sea oil was gushing for 20 years Scottish money helped pay for the reconfigeration of the UK economy from manufacturing to services. Right now, and for the last decade or more the cross subsidy works the other way. It means we have the use of Sterling, the stability that comes with a solid monetary base, and not only access to but full participation in the largest international financial centre in the world.
I, and a significant minority of Scots, am proud to be British. This is a great country that is a little too prone to beating itself up. It is a force for good in the world and believes more deeply than almost any other country that I am aware of in fairness, decency, the rule of law and compassion. The balance to make up a majority in favour of the Union may be more pragmatic about it but I remain confident that Scotland will again choose to remain.
Nothing there David that we could not do independent. We were in EU so that argument is false People have opportunities all over the world so false Just laugh at the next one Just say Norway to next one Every country has a currency and most are stable
So no benefit and all the downsides
It's pretty simple:
Short term: border, currency = trouble
Long term: no one really knows. But immigration/tax credits for children is a must given the demographic profile.
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
I bet no-one can come up with one.
There is a positive case - you get to be richer, part of a more diversified economy (so less vulnerable to shocks) with more opportunities for younger people and a better exchange of ideas.
Exactly the same positive case for the EU (which no one made effectively).
Against that there is a cost in terms of dilution of identity, sovereignty and the freedom to set Scotland specific policies (although devolution means you have a lot of the last already).
Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is a question for Scots to determine but it’s facile to argue that there is no argument on one side or the other
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
I bet no-one can come up with one.
Scotland gains enormously from being in a Union with the rest of the UK. It gives us unrestricted access to a much larger market. It give our young opportunities that they would not otherwise have. It gives us, through the Union, some significance in the world. It allows us a degree of cross subsidy in harder times. When North Sea oil was gushing for 20 years Scottish money helped pay for the reconfigeration of the UK economy from manufacturing to services. Right now, and for the last decade or more the cross subsidy works the other way. It means we have the use of Sterling, the stability that comes with a solid monetary base, and not only access to but full participation in the largest international financial centre in the world.
I, and a significant minority of Scots, am proud to be British. This is a great country that is a little too prone to beating itself up. It is a force for good in the world and believes more deeply than almost any other country that I am aware of in fairness, decency, the rule of law and compassion. The balance to make up a majority in favour of the Union may be more pragmatic about it but I remain confident that Scotland will again choose to remain.
Nothing there David that we could not do independent. We were in EU so that argument is false People have opportunities all over the world so false Just laugh at the next one Just say Norway to next one Every country has a currency and most are stable
So no benefit and all the downsides
This is probably a pointless conversation but we are no longer in the EU and if Scotland were to be foolish enough to vote for independence we would, at best have to choose whether to remain in the SM with rUK or the SM with the EU. More than 2/3 of our trade is with the former so it is actually a bit of a no brainer in which event what on earth is the point?
Fulham announce death of fan who suffered a cardiac arrest in the stands during their Championship clash against Blackpool... and thank those who used flags to give the stricken supporter privacy when the match was stopped.
Something very odd is happening and I can’t work out what. From time to time you would hear that someone had died at a football match, but it was rare.
This season, not a match day goes by without a game being stopped because of someone being taken ill in the stands. Perhaps this always happened, and the players just played on but now that’s not considered acceptable. But it all seems very strange.
I was at a match as a teenager in the 90s and an elderly gentleman collapsed just after kick-off but the game started as normal.
I remember being in the audience of a Jeffrey Archer play at the Windsor Theatre years ago. They had to stop the play whilst the medics sorted it out. Luckily he was OK in the end. Can't remember the name of the play, but it was a courtroom drama (obviously).
On the header, after having spent a weekend in Manchester and talking about BJ with a variety of people (admittedly a small sample), I’m more convinced that @TSE is wrong.
Both folks - who do switch their votes or just don’t vote if they don’t like anyone - said they are sticking with Boris. Their views was that the parties thing was overblown. More on topic, they both were disdainful of Starmer and Labour.
I then went out with some old friends, two definitely old school Labour (but also not woke - my school friend would be called a TERF) and one who voted for Brexit. All of them said they felt Boris was a leader whereas Starmer wasn’t. They all pointed out the importance of portraying optimism and an upbeat message, and they felt BJ had that and Starmer didn’t. Interestingly, Blair’s name came up and the women talked about how his smiling was a definite plus for them, at least at first.
That didn’t blind them to his faults nor that the Government had cocked up badly on several fronts. But they would much rather have BJ as PM than Starmer. Ironically, the one who was most anti-BJ was the Brexiteer because she didn’t want to be “ruled by toffs”.
PS enthusiasm for Rishi was low. All felt he was untrustworthy and the word ‘sneaky’ came up more than once. I’m not sure Rishi would do much for the Tories outside places like St Albans and, as pointed out, seats with large Indian populations.
OMG A vox-pop anecdote alert.
Whereas your witnesses may well think Starmer isn't presidential enough for them, the anecdotal evidence I am seeing in RedWall Wales is "one rule for Boris, another for the little people" and I see no hostility yet to a CofE that gave us all free money for a year.
Most Welsh subsample polling at the moment shows the Tories better in Wales relatively compared to 2019 than the UK as a whole. Boris of course has ended all restrictions in England unlike Drakeford in Wales
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
In the event of a rematch, the No/Remain campaign will almost certainly major on costs, with a reasonable chance of success.
A rematch almost certainly comes after the fall of the Tories, and against a background of Labour likely having dismantled most of what's left of the Union to try to appease the soft pro-independence vote. It may very well work.
The argument presented to voters will go like this: the Scottish Parliament controls most of the tax base and the vast bulk of policy that impacts the everyday lives of Scots, so why change? Is having a separate foreign policy and defence force so vital to you that you're willing to throw the UK's common currency, free trade area and transfer payments in the dustbin - meaning much greater economic uncertainty, a hard border with England, and a combination of austerity and substantially higher taxes for many years?
This line won't make a jot of difference to the hardcore sovereigntists, but they of course don't matter: if the Yes/Leave camp fails to successfully debunk it then it can't win. So long as the UK Government can convince enough of the muddy middle (people who view themselves as purely Scottish, who don't particularly like rule from Westminster and who don't give a flying wotsit about the rest of the UK, but who also view the Union as having transactional benefits,) that independence is going to drain their wallets and empty their pension pots, then the Union is safe.
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
I bet no-one can come up with one.
Scotland gains enormously from being in a Union with the rest of the UK. It gives us unrestricted access to a much larger market. It give our young opportunities that they would not otherwise have. It gives us, through the Union, some significance in the world. It allows us a degree of cross subsidy in harder times. When North Sea oil was gushing for 20 years Scottish money helped pay for the reconfigeration of the UK economy from manufacturing to services. Right now, and for the last decade or more the cross subsidy works the other way. It means we have the use of Sterling, the stability that comes with a solid monetary base, and not only access to but full participation in the largest international financial centre in the world.
I, and a significant minority of Scots, am proud to be British. This is a great country that is a little too prone to beating itself up. It is a force for good in the world and believes more deeply than almost any other country that I am aware of in fairness, decency, the rule of law and compassion. The balance to make up a majority in favour of the Union may be more pragmatic about it but I remain confident that Scotland will again choose to remain.
Nothing there David that we could not do independent. We were in EU so that argument is false People have opportunities all over the world so false Just laugh at the next one Just say Norway to next one Every country has a currency and most are stable
So no benefit and all the downsides
It's pretty simple:
Short term: border, currency = trouble
Long term: no one really knows. But immigration/tax credits for children is a must given the demographic profile.
Immigration to Scotland means a tighter boundary with England. That is inevitable.
A solid lead for Sinn Fein in this morning's Sunday Business Post poll.
It looks like a 8% swing to the opposition from the governing coalition whose parties have gone from 50% of the vote at the last election to 42% now with SF up eight to 33.
The current Government would certainly lose its majority and the question for me is what would the Independents do - currently there are 20 of them in the Dail Eireann? As the next election isn't until early 2025, this is all academic for now.
Mr. Eabhal, could be wrong but I was under the impression that Halifax/BoS was currently registered in Scotland rather than England.
Correct. Lloyds is a Scottish bank...
Yes, but in the immediate aftermath of Indyref2, the rUK is going to have to work hard to keep these banks safe anyway.
There is lots of undue optimism on one side, and fear mongering on the other. There will be a short term fudge on currency and banking - it's in everyone's interest.
Whilst I understand Scotland's desire for self-determination and the growing despair with what is going on in Westminster, turning Scotland into a very small country is not the best way forward. I'm not making arguments for independence because I don't support independence - but the arguments that it would be easy or it would be ruinous are both daft.
What is needed is clear thinking south of the wall. Where does England want to be? At the moment it has chosen to have the right to have babies even though it can't have babies. Hopefully soon the foetus gestation box will be put away and recognition that it still has and will continue to have shared standards and trading needs with the EU will sink in.
Scottish independence whilst everyone was part of the EU was hard. Now that we have this absurd WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM bravado as the queues on either side of the channel extend for a dozen miles, it feels absurdly hard. But I don't expect that will stay the case for long. And the longer that England's approach to not just abroad but remoaners is "fuck em" the more Scotland and NI get repelled away.
The "WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM" attitude is what scares me about independence.
JRM as rUK PM with HYUFD patrolling the border. Eeeeeek.
This is a fundamental misreading of the entire situation. A secessionist Scotland is highly unlikely to encounter hostility from London, save possibly for a scenario in which an argument blows up over the apportionment of the national debt.
Put crudely, the primary reason for independence and the primary determinant of the post-independence relationship are one and the same: England is ten times the size of Scotland.
Secession is an existential issue for Scots, but an irrelevance to most of the English. Professional politicians and a minority of committed Unionists (who fret about things like nuclear weapons, security council seats and general nebulous angst about the diminution of the greatness of Britain) will worry themselves sick about it, but it wouldn't make a jot of difference to my everyday life nor that of most of my compatriots. For some of those who live very close to the border and for people tasked with managing trade across it: important. For people living three hundred miles to the South who have nothing to do with Scotland save for the occasional holiday: not so much.
Down South, we've had two decades of devolution, one decade of SNP governments in Edinburgh and a narrow defeat for an independence referendum to get used to the idea that a very large chunk of Scottish public opinion wants to leave, and that secession at some point is basically inevitable. The event is already expected: when it happens it's most likely to provoke shoulder shrugging, perhaps accompanied by some regret at the end of an era, rather than a backlash.
If the Scottish Government doesn't get everything it wants out of independence negotiations then it's not going to be because its counterpart in London is being wilfully difficult. It'll be because (a) it is motivated entirely by the welfare of its own people, (b) those people have no particular interest in doing anything to help Scotland that puts them to trouble or costs them money, and (c) Scotland has little to offer in return. That's all.
Of course it would encounter a hardline attitude. If Scotland voted for independence the remaining government of rUK would take at least as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU did with London after the Brexit vote.
English voters would demand no concessions whatsoever to the Nationalists and to ensure as much of the oil, armed forces etc remained on the English side of the border not the Scottish side and that not a penny more was ever sent north of the border by English taxpayers to Scotland ever again. English fishermen would also demand restrictions on Scottish fishermens access to English fishing grounds.
That would especially very true of a Tory government but even an English Labour government would also have to do so or risk losing English voters to the Tories. Though of course only a Labour minority government reliant on the SNP would allow an indyref2 anyway
I'd agree with that, except that I don't have the impression that the British Government tried, certainly after Dec 2019, to be very co-operative with or even pleasant to, the EU commission.
Mr. Pioneers, Scotland has a financial sector that is proportionally larger than England's.
Without a formal currency union they would require a massive sum in reserve assets to offset the potential for a banking crisis.
No British (ex-Scotland) politician is going to try and persuade the electorate south of the border that being on the hook for hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to support the recently departed Scotland's now rival financial sector is a clever idea.
I agree with this in principle. But, in the short term, the UK Gov would face a massive problem.
Everyone in England will run on the "Scottish banks". There will be whispers about RBS taking down NatWest, and BoS taking out Lloyds/Halifax. These are UK institutions, but your gammony Englishman isn't going to think like that.
we will be well shot of Nat West and halifax, we can get back to having real Scottish banks rather than them being regional offices of English banks.
If I see a Hillman Imp with a Saltaire decalled roof parked in John Finney Street outside the Clydesdale Bank, I'll know it's you
Pete, , though Clydesdale is owned by Virgin nowadays so I would not piss in the door if a branch was on fire.
Mason Greenwood's girlfriend accuses him of attacking her in shocking Instagram post
WARNING - DISTRESSING CONTENT: Harriet Robson has posted a series of Instagram posts that she claims show the effects of the physical abuse suffered by her at the hands of Manchester United star Mason Greenwood
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
A solid lead for Sinn Fein in this morning's Sunday Business Post poll.
It looks like a 8% swing to the opposition from the governing coalition whose parties have gone from 50% of the vote at the last election to 42% now with SF up eight to 33.
The current Government would certainly lose its majority and the question for me is what would the Independents do - currently there are 20 of them in the Dail Eireann? As the next election isn't until early 2025, this is all academic for now.
Most likely support FG and FF especially as combined they are almost 10% ahead of SF still in return for extra cash
Mr. Eabhal, could be wrong but I was under the impression that Halifax/BoS was currently registered in Scotland rather than England.
Correct. Lloyds is a Scottish bank...
Yes, but in the immediate aftermath of Indyref2, the rUK is going to have to work hard to keep these banks safe anyway.
There is lots of undue optimism on one side, and fear mongering on the other. There will be a short term fudge on currency and banking - it's in everyone's interest.
Whilst I understand Scotland's desire for self-determination and the growing despair with what is going on in Westminster, turning Scotland into a very small country is not the best way forward. I'm not making arguments for independence because I don't support independence - but the arguments that it would be easy or it would be ruinous are both daft.
What is needed is clear thinking south of the wall. Where does England want to be? At the moment it has chosen to have the right to have babies even though it can't have babies. Hopefully soon the foetus gestation box will be put away and recognition that it still has and will continue to have shared standards and trading needs with the EU will sink in.
Scottish independence whilst everyone was part of the EU was hard. Now that we have this absurd WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM bravado as the queues on either side of the channel extend for a dozen miles, it feels absurdly hard. But I don't expect that will stay the case for long. And the longer that England's approach to not just abroad but remoaners is "fuck em" the more Scotland and NI get repelled away.
The "WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM" attitude is what scares me about independence.
JRM as rUK PM with HYUFD patrolling the border. Eeeeeek.
This is a fundamental misreading of the entire situation. A secessionist Scotland is highly unlikely to encounter hostility from London, save possibly for a scenario in which an argument blows up over the apportionment of the national debt.
Put crudely, the primary reason for independence and the primary determinant of the post-independence relationship are one and the same: England is ten times the size of Scotland.
Secession is an existential issue for Scots, but an irrelevance to most of the English. Professional politicians and a minority of committed Unionists (who fret about things like nuclear weapons, security council seats and general nebulous angst about the diminution of the greatness of Britain) will worry themselves sick about it, but it wouldn't make a jot of difference to my everyday life nor that of most of my compatriots. For some of those who live very close to the border and for people tasked with managing trade across it: important. For people living three hundred miles to the South who have nothing to do with Scotland save for the occasional holiday: not so much.
Down South, we've had two decades of devolution, one decade of SNP governments in Edinburgh and a narrow defeat for an independence referendum to get used to the idea that a very large chunk of Scottish public opinion wants to leave, and that secession at some point is basically inevitable. The event is already expected: when it happens it's most likely to provoke shoulder shrugging, perhaps accompanied by some regret at the end of an era, rather than a backlash.
If the Scottish Government doesn't get everything it wants out of independence negotiations then it's not going to be because its counterpart in London is being wilfully difficult. It'll be because (a) it is motivated entirely by the welfare of its own people, (b) those people have no particular interest in doing anything to help Scotland that puts them to trouble or costs them money, and (c) Scotland has little to offer in return. That's all.
Of course it would encounter a hardline attitude. If Scotland voted for independence the remaining government of rUK would take at least as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU did with London after the Brexit vote.
English voters would demand no concessions whatsoever to the Nationalists and to ensure as much of the oil, armed forces etc remained on the English side of the border not the Scottish side and that not a penny more was ever sent north of the border by English taxpayers to Scotland ever again. English fishermen would also demand restrictions on Scottish fishermens access to English fishing grounds.
That would especially very true of a Tory government but even an English Labour government would also have to do so or risk losing English voters to the Tories. Though of course only a Labour minority government reliant on the SNP would allow an indyref2 anyway
I'd agree with that, except that I don't have the impression that the British Government tried, certainly after Dec 2019, to be very co-operative with or even pleasant to, the EU commission.
No but the EU commission as the bigger entity ensured the British government had very tough negotiations to deal with.
In any Scexit however the rUK government would be a bigger entity than the Scottish government and therefore better able to dictate terms
Mr. Pioneers, Scotland has a financial sector that is proportionally larger than England's.
Without a formal currency union they would require a massive sum in reserve assets to offset the potential for a banking crisis.
No British (ex-Scotland) politician is going to try and persuade the electorate south of the border that being on the hook for hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to support the recently departed Scotland's now rival financial sector is a clever idea.
I agree with this in principle. But, in the short term, the UK Gov would face a massive problem.
Everyone in England will run on the "Scottish banks". There will be whispers about RBS taking down NatWest, and BoS taking out Lloyds/Halifax. These are UK institutions, but your gammony Englishman isn't going to think like that.
we will be well shot of Nat West and halifax, we can get back to having real Scottish banks rather than them being regional offices of English banks.
Malcolm, you might want to think about why those amalgamations took place in the first place. It massively increased the capital available to the Scottish banks and their ability to trade and lend. It gave the management the opportunities to earn obscene sums of money and this trickled, more like poured actually, into Edinburgh, keeping the private schools going and the tax take way higher than it was before. From Scotland's point of view, it gave us some home grown international businesses again. Once upon a time many Scottish businesses transversed the globe but we now have an almost exclusively branch economy with all the problems that brings.
David, it was just another con to enrich Hooray Henry's , mainly English but Scottish versions as well. It did noth ing much for Scotland other than the fancy new office block. They did wreck good banks that had been doing fine for hundreds of years and making them so large just made us dependent on others. We have branch economy because that is what Westminster forces on us, it all has to be centred on London. Where those supposed Scottish banks were run from indeed.
Have you ever been around the Gyle Malcolm? It gave Edinburgh in particular thousands of well paid jobs that funded and created the demand for the housebuilding in south Fife, Lothian and Livingston. The businesses that serviced these behemoths thrived too. It was too good to last but the benefit for Scotland was immense and is still large, if somewhat diminished.
David, I have indeed and am very well aquainted business wise with RBS now known as NatWest
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
Mr. Pioneers, Scotland has a financial sector that is proportionally larger than England's.
Without a formal currency union they would require a massive sum in reserve assets to offset the potential for a banking crisis.
No British (ex-Scotland) politician is going to try and persuade the electorate south of the border that being on the hook for hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to support the recently departed Scotland's now rival financial sector is a clever idea.
I agree with this in principle. But, in the short term, the UK Gov would face a massive problem.
Everyone in England will run on the "Scottish banks". There will be whispers about RBS taking down NatWest, and BoS taking out Lloyds/Halifax. These are UK institutions, but your gammony Englishman isn't going to think like that.
we will be well shot of Nat West and halifax, we can get back to having real Scottish banks rather than them being regional offices of English banks.
Funny that it was Scottish banks buying English ones and messing them up
It was reverse takeovers in disguise, anyone sensible knows what happened. Brass plates in Edinburgh mean little.
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
I bet no-one can come up with one.
Scotland gains enormously from being in a Union with the rest of the UK. It gives us unrestricted access to a much larger market. It give our young opportunities that they would not otherwise have. It gives us, through the Union, some significance in the world. It allows us a degree of cross subsidy in harder times. When North Sea oil was gushing for 20 years Scottish money helped pay for the reconfigeration of the UK economy from manufacturing to services. Right now, and for the last decade or more the cross subsidy works the other way. It means we have the use of Sterling, the stability that comes with a solid monetary base, and not only access to but full participation in the largest international financial centre in the world.
I, and a significant minority of Scots, am proud to be British. This is a great country that is a little too prone to beating itself up. It is a force for good in the world and believes more deeply than almost any other country that I am aware of in fairness, decency, the rule of law and compassion. The balance to make up a majority in favour of the Union may be more pragmatic about it but I remain confident that Scotland will again choose to remain.
Nothing there David that we could not do independent. We were in EU so that argument is false People have opportunities all over the world so false Just laugh at the next one Just say Norway to next one Every country has a currency and most are stable
So no benefit and all the downsides
It's pretty simple:
Short term: border, currency = trouble
Long term: no one really knows. But immigration/tax credits for children is a must given the demographic profile.
I read that as currency = rouble.
Which would be one threat iScotchland could deploy to get English cooperation. Or currency = renminbi
Of course it would encounter a hardline attitude. If Scotland voted for independence the remaining government of rUK would take at least as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU did with London after the Brexit vote.
English voters would demand no concessions whatsoever to the Nationalists and to ensure as much of the oil, armed forces etc remained on the English side of the border not the Scottish side and that not a penny more was ever sent north of the border by English taxpayers to Scotland ever again. English fishermen would also demand restrictions on Scottish fishermens access to English fishing grounds.
That would especially very true of a Tory government but even an English Labour government would also have to do so or risk losing English voters to the Tories. Though of course only a Labour minority government reliant on the SNP would allow an indyref2 anyway
I don't agree.
IF there is a vote for independence, the mood in England, apart from complete indifference among the considerable number with no connection to Scotland in any way, will I suspect be more one of sorrow than anger.
Trying to compare Scotland leaving the United Kingdom with the UK leaving the European Union isn't entirely valid but there are some parallels.
It will not be in the interests of the rest of the UK to deliberately create an impoverished state on its border. I suspect the economic parallel will be nearer to the relationship the Free State and then Eire had with the United Kingdom after 1922 so there'll be no "border" as such pending an independent Scotland's future relationship with the EU, NATO and other global and regional bodies.
No doubt this has all been planned in Whitehall and Holyrood (it should have been) and I suspect these long-held plans will be dusted off the day after an independence vote.
I don't know why some would seek to inflame anti-Scottish anger (or hysteria) apart from to some obscure political advantage. It would be more sensible to tone down the rhetoric, accept the result and seek to find an amicable future relationship (where have I heard that before?)
It was reverse takeovers in disguise, anyone sensible knows what happened. Brass plates in Edinburgh mean little.
When Fred the Shred launched a bid to buy a Dutch bank and create the largest bank in the World, it's hard to argue a sensible Scottish bank was being taken over by London.
Mr. Eabhal, could be wrong but I was under the impression that Halifax/BoS was currently registered in Scotland rather than England.
Correct. Lloyds is a Scottish bank...
Yes, but in the immediate aftermath of Indyref2, the rUK is going to have to work hard to keep these banks safe anyway.
There is lots of undue optimism on one side, and fear mongering on the other. There will be a short term fudge on currency and banking - it's in everyone's interest.
Whilst I understand Scotland's desire for self-determination and the growing despair with what is going on in Westminster, turning Scotland into a very small country is not the best way forward. I'm not making arguments for independence because I don't support independence - but the arguments that it would be easy or it would be ruinous are both daft.
What is needed is clear thinking south of the wall. Where does England want to be? At the moment it has chosen to have the right to have babies even though it can't have babies. Hopefully soon the foetus gestation box will be put away and recognition that it still has and will continue to have shared standards and trading needs with the EU will sink in.
Scottish independence whilst everyone was part of the EU was hard. Now that we have this absurd WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM bravado as the queues on either side of the channel extend for a dozen miles, it feels absurdly hard. But I don't expect that will stay the case for long. And the longer that England's approach to not just abroad but remoaners is "fuck em" the more Scotland and NI get repelled away.
The "WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM" attitude is what scares me about independence.
JRM as rUK PM with HYUFD patrolling the border. Eeeeeek.
This is a fundamental misreading of the entire situation. A secessionist Scotland is highly unlikely to encounter hostility from London, save possibly for a scenario in which an argument blows up over the apportionment of the national debt.
Put crudely, the primary reason for independence and the primary determinant of the post-independence relationship are one and the same: England is ten times the size of Scotland.
Secession is an existential issue for Scots, but an irrelevance to most of the English. Professional politicians and a minority of committed Unionists (who fret about things like nuclear weapons, security council seats and general nebulous angst about the diminution of the greatness of Britain) will worry themselves sick about it, but it wouldn't make a jot of difference to my everyday life nor that of most of my compatriots. For some of those who live very close to the border and for people tasked with managing trade across it: important. For people living three hundred miles to the South who have nothing to do with Scotland save for the occasional holiday: not so much.
Down South, we've had two decades of devolution, one decade of SNP governments in Edinburgh and a narrow defeat for an independence referendum to get used to the idea that a very large chunk of Scottish public opinion wants to leave, and that secession at some point is basically inevitable. The event is already expected: when it happens it's most likely to provoke shoulder shrugging, perhaps accompanied by some regret at the end of an era, rather than a backlash.
If the Scottish Government doesn't get everything it wants out of independence negotiations then it's not going to be because its counterpart in London is being wilfully difficult. It'll be because (a) it is motivated entirely by the welfare of its own people, (b) those people have no particular interest in doing anything to help Scotland that puts them to trouble or costs them money, and (c) Scotland has little to offer in return. That's all.
Of course it would encounter a hardline attitude. If Scotland voted for independence the remaining government of rUK would take at least as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU did with London after the Brexit vote.
English voters would demand no concessions whatsoever to the Nationalists and to ensure as much of the oil, armed forces etc remained on the English side of the border not the Scottish side and that not a penny more was ever sent north of the border by English taxpayers to Scotland ever again. English fishermen would also demand restrictions on Scottish fishermens access to English fishing grounds.
That would especially very true of a Tory government but even an English Labour government would also have to do so or risk losing English voters to the Tories. Though of course only a Labour minority government reliant on the SNP would allow an indyref2 anyway
I'd agree with that, except that I don't have the impression that the British Government tried, certainly after Dec 2019, to be very co-operative with or even pleasant to, the EU commission.
No but the EU commission as the bigger entity ensured the British government had very tough negotiations to deal with.
In any Scexit however the rUK government would be a bigger entity than the Scottish government and therefore better able to dictate terms
So because the EU Commission bullied* London, you think London could and would bully Edinburgh.
*Precis of what appears to be your view. Not mine.
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
I bet no-one can come up with one.
Scotland gains enormously from being in a Union with the rest of the UK. It gives us unrestricted access to a much larger market. It give our young opportunities that they would not otherwise have. It gives us, through the Union, some significance in the world. It allows us a degree of cross subsidy in harder times. When North Sea oil was gushing for 20 years Scottish money helped pay for the reconfigeration of the UK economy from manufacturing to services. Right now, and for the last decade or more the cross subsidy works the other way. It means we have the use of Sterling, the stability that comes with a solid monetary base, and not only access to but full participation in the largest international financial centre in the world.
I, and a significant minority of Scots, am proud to be British. This is a great country that is a little too prone to beating itself up. It is a force for good in the world and believes more deeply than almost any other country that I am aware of in fairness, decency, the rule of law and compassion. The balance to make up a majority in favour of the Union may be more pragmatic about it but I remain confident that Scotland will again choose to remain.
Nothing there David that we could not do independent. We were in EU so that argument is false People have opportunities all over the world so false Just laugh at the next one Just say Norway to next one Every country has a currency and most are stable
So no benefit and all the downsides
It's pretty simple:
Short term: border, currency = trouble
Long term: no one really knows. But immigration/tax credits for children is a must given the demographic profile.
No doubt initially it will be trouble but it has been done many times and no reason for major difficulties, the sharks will pobviously try to make money out of it but if done properly it is very viable. Biggest issue will be building up all teh infrastructure that is centralise down south and having the skills abvailable to rebuild all the government infrastures etc. Certainly be lots of employment opportunities.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
Assume employers would need to decide etc , same as mortgage countries banks etc. Nothing unusual, look at Euro , all those countries had to change everything. So the blueprint / options are already there, it is nothing NEW as the zealots on here try to pretend. It has all been done many many times and few countries are poorer as a result of being able to hold onto and handle their own finances.
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
It would all depend on what iScotland intended as its destination. The major problem for the UK with Brexit was that there was no destination - "we will leave the EU" great, and then do what? Its like the "we will trigger A16" line as if that magically fixes the intra-Irish border.
Surely the destination would be EU membership and with it the Euro. In which case the currency and central bank issue is fixed medium term and can be managed short term as part of the separation process.
Story that Bojo wanted lockdown, Sunak Frost JRM stopped him. Source of story fairly clear:
"When Prof Whitty made his remarks, Mr Sunak was 5,000 miles away in California, having flown out the previous day for his first holiday in two years.
Fearing that the Prime Minister would cave in to the scientists and cancel Christmas, the Chancellor rang Mr Johnson to urge restraint; he then made immediate arrangements to fly back to London.
Mr Sunak, who has been the most consistent opponent of Covid restrictions since the pandemic first broke out, arrived back in the UK on Friday December 17.
He went straight in to No 10 to see the Prime Minister, who was, it is claimed, preparing to use a press conference that weekend to impose new restrictions on social interactions."
I still think BJ will be gone by end of this week; annoyingly just too late for my end Jan bet to pay out
Knives also out at the Times: how long can a PM last when a Times piece begins:
The accepted narrative on Boris Johnson is that he is a liar. He lies, we are told, almost as easily as he breathes. He does it so fluidly and expertly and naturally that it is easier to assume he is lying than he isn’t.
It was reverse takeovers in disguise, anyone sensible knows what happened. Brass plates in Edinburgh mean little.
When Fred the Shred launched a bid to buy a Dutch bank and create the largest bank in the World, it's hard to argue a sensible Scottish bank was being taken over by London.
But carry on...
He was just a crook, nothing to do with being a Scottish bank. Jog on
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
It would all depend on what iScotland intended as its destination. The major problem for the UK with Brexit was that there was no destination - "we will leave the EU" great, and then do what? Its like the "we will trigger A16" line as if that magically fixes the intra-Irish border.
Surely the destination would be EU membership and with it the Euro. In which case the currency and central bank issue is fixed medium term and can be managed short term as part of the separation process.
If the destination was not only EU membership but the Euro too then Scotland would not really be voting for independence anyway. It would be voting for Berlin and Frankfurt to set its economic policies as Greece discovered during the global financial crisis
With my ex-journalist hat on, the MoS Gove splash seems remarkably weak. The front page story was basically “platitude platitude platitude platitude Sheffield Wolverhampton”. No meat to it at all. I wouldn’t have run it as the lead story at my alma mater (not quite Grommets Monthly, but close… some of you might even read it), let alone on the front page of a national paper.
When the Mail print titles are prioritising “save Boris” over an actually compelling story, something is wrong. I’m starting to agree with those who say the returning Dacre has lost his touch.
Next week we will get a hundred page Gove driven document on the benefits of Brexit. It's a topic that fascinates me because for five years people have been hunting high and low for Brexit benefits without finding much. I do accept big changes come with pluses and minuses, but it is remarkable how few pluses there are with Brexit to offset the many minuses. Particularly as it was a choice we actually voted for.
Should add the main point. This is a government without policies, whether on levelling up or on Brexit. That accusation can and is being turned at Starmer - correctly so. But they are the opposition. They have that indulgence; governments don't.
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
It would all depend on what iScotland intended as its destination. The major problem for the UK with Brexit was that there was no destination - "we will leave the EU" great, and then do what? Its like the "we will trigger A16" line as if that magically fixes the intra-Irish border.
Surely the destination would be EU membership and with it the Euro. In which case the currency and central bank issue is fixed medium term and can be managed short term as part of the separation process.
If the destination was not only EU membership but the Euro too then Scotland would not really be voting for independence anyway. It would be voting for Berlin and Frankfurt to set its economic policies as Greece discovered during the global financial crisis
- “As I noted on Thursday the latest Ipsos MORI poll had Labour, the Lib Dems, and Greens outpolling the Conservatives 2:1, coupled with the earlier finding that a majority of the public disagree that the government deserves to be reelected then the party might be headed for an epochal defeat to rival 1997 and 1945.“
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
Assume employers would need to decide etc , same as mortgage countries banks etc. Nothing unusual, look at Euro , all those countries had to change everything. So the blueprint / options are already there, it is nothing NEW as the zealots on here try to pretend. It has all been done many many times and few countries are poorer as a result of being able to hold onto and handle their own finances.
Oh its all been done before. The question is while you are paid in Scottish pounds what happens to the loan / pension payment were the Scottish currency to depreciate / appreciate compared to the (remainder of the) UK pound.
You don't have a problem if everything stays / transfers to the same currency, you do have a problem if only some things change.
Mason Greenwood's girlfriend accuses him of attacking her in shocking Instagram post
WARNING - DISTRESSING CONTENT: Harriet Robson has posted a series of Instagram posts that she claims show the effects of the physical abuse suffered by her at the hands of Manchester United star Mason Greenwood
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
And I think J Caesar was an Imperator, though not an emperor, while the emperors were technically just rather long term consuls. It's complicated.
Story that Bojo wanted lockdown, Sunak Frost JRM stopped him. Source of story fairly clear:
"When Prof Whitty made his remarks, Mr Sunak was 5,000 miles away in California, having flown out the previous day for his first holiday in two years.
Fearing that the Prime Minister would cave in to the scientists and cancel Christmas, the Chancellor rang Mr Johnson to urge restraint; he then made immediate arrangements to fly back to London.
Mr Sunak, who has been the most consistent opponent of Covid restrictions since the pandemic first broke out, arrived back in the UK on Friday December 17.
He went straight in to No 10 to see the Prime Minister, who was, it is claimed, preparing to use a press conference that weekend to impose new restrictions on social interactions."
I still think BJ will be gone by end of this week; annoyingly just too late for my end Jan bet to pay out
Knives also out at the Times: how long can a PM last when a Times piece begins:
The accepted narrative on Boris Johnson is that he is a liar. He lies, we are told, almost as easily as he breathes. He does it so fluidly and expertly and naturally that it is easier to assume he is lying than he isn’t.
No, the article made clear Boris took an open mind as the anti lockdown Sunak and Rees Mogg battled the pro lockdown Gove in Cabinet before backing the former
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
It was reverse takeovers in disguise, anyone sensible knows what happened. Brass plates in Edinburgh mean little.
When Fred the Shred launched a bid to buy a Dutch bank and create the largest bank in the World, it's hard to argue a sensible Scottish bank was being taken over by London.
But carry on...
He was just a crook, nothing to do with being a Scottish bank. Jog on
Somebody should have told Alex Salmond.
Salmond offered RBS help in bank takeover
ALEX Salmond offered the assistance of the Scottish Government to Sir Fred Goodwin for the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro that almost destroyed the Royal Bank of Scotland.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
He would be the most common first guess. If it is stop at an incorrect guess I think you are looking at a mean around 1.5 and a mode of 0. If you give them 10 guesses and disallow multiples (i.e all the Constanine's count only as 1), a mean around 3.5 and a mode of 2.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Septimius Severus (also York) ETA sorry, died there. ETA2 so Caracalla and Geta kinda succeeded there
Arguing that Scottish independence is technically complicated or difficult isn't going to save 𝒪𝒰𝑅 𝒫𝑅𝐸𝒞𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒰𝒩𝐼𝒪𝒩. That's just being a cover band redoing the losing Remain campaign and it'll work about as well.
There has to be a positive case for Scotland staying in the UK if any such exists.
I bet no-one can come up with one.
Scotland gains enormously from being in a Union with the rest of the UK. It gives us unrestricted access to a much larger market. It give our young opportunities that they would not otherwise have. It gives us, through the Union, some significance in the world. It allows us a degree of cross subsidy in harder times. When North Sea oil was gushing for 20 years Scottish money helped pay for the reconfigeration of the UK economy from manufacturing to services. Right now, and for the last decade or more the cross subsidy works the other way. It means we have the use of Sterling, the stability that comes with a solid monetary base, and not only access to but full participation in the largest international financial centre in the world.
I, and a significant minority of Scots, am proud to be British. This is a great country that is a little too prone to beating itself up. It is a force for good in the world and believes more deeply than almost any other country that I am aware of in fairness, decency, the rule of law and compassion. The balance to make up a majority in favour of the Union may be more pragmatic about it but I remain confident that Scotland will again choose to remain.
Nothing there David that we could not do independent. We were in EU so that argument is false People have opportunities all over the world so false Just laugh at the next one Just say Norway to next one Every country has a currency and most are stable
So no benefit and all the downsides
It's pretty simple:
Short term: border, currency = trouble
Long term: no one really knows. But immigration/tax credits for children is a must given the demographic profile.
No doubt initially it will be trouble but it has been done many times and no reason for major difficulties, the sharks will pobviously try to make money out of it but if done properly it is very viable. Biggest issue will be building up all teh infrastructure that is centralise down south and having the skills abvailable to rebuild all the government infrastures etc. Certainly be lots of employment opportunities.
Unless they are prepared to overturn a much-cherished national stereotype Scots are somewhat unlikely to vote to make themselves worse off. Whichever way you look at it that is inevitable with Indy. Brexit has had the effect of clarifying that even more than was the case in 2016. It's why the SNP are just going through the motions in order to keep the fanbase happy.
Mr. Eabhal, could be wrong but I was under the impression that Halifax/BoS was currently registered in Scotland rather than England.
Correct. Lloyds is a Scottish bank...
Yes, but in the immediate aftermath of Indyref2, the rUK is going to have to work hard to keep these banks safe anyway.
There is lots of undue optimism on one side, and fear mongering on the other. There will be a short term fudge on currency and banking - it's in everyone's interest.
Whilst I understand Scotland's desire for self-determination and the growing despair with what is going on in Westminster, turning Scotland into a very small country is not the best way forward. I'm not making arguments for independence because I don't support independence - but the arguments that it would be easy or it would be ruinous are both daft.
What is needed is clear thinking south of the wall. Where does England want to be? At the moment it has chosen to have the right to have babies even though it can't have babies. Hopefully soon the foetus gestation box will be put away and recognition that it still has and will continue to have shared standards and trading needs with the EU will sink in.
Scottish independence whilst everyone was part of the EU was hard. Now that we have this absurd WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM bravado as the queues on either side of the channel extend for a dozen miles, it feels absurdly hard. But I don't expect that will stay the case for long. And the longer that England's approach to not just abroad but remoaners is "fuck em" the more Scotland and NI get repelled away.
The "WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM" attitude is what scares me about independence.
JRM as rUK PM with HYUFD patrolling the border. Eeeeeek.
This is a fundamental misreading of the entire situation. A secessionist Scotland is highly unlikely to encounter hostility from London, save possibly for a scenario in which an argument blows up over the apportionment of the national debt.
Put crudely, the primary reason for independence and the primary determinant of the post-independence relationship are one and the same: England is ten times the size of Scotland.
Secession is an existential issue for Scots, but an irrelevance to most of the English. Professional politicians and a minority of committed Unionists (who fret about things like nuclear weapons, security council seats and general nebulous angst about the diminution of the greatness of Britain) will worry themselves sick about it, but it wouldn't make a jot of difference to my everyday life nor that of most of my compatriots. For some of those who live very close to the border and for people tasked with managing trade across it: important. For people living three hundred miles to the South who have nothing to do with Scotland save for the occasional holiday: not so much.
Down South, we've had two decades of devolution, one decade of SNP governments in Edinburgh and a narrow defeat for an independence referendum to get used to the idea that a very large chunk of Scottish public opinion wants to leave, and that secession at some point is basically inevitable. The event is already expected: when it happens it's most likely to provoke shoulder shrugging, perhaps accompanied by some regret at the end of an era, rather than a backlash.
If the Scottish Government doesn't get everything it wants out of independence negotiations then it's not going to be because its counterpart in London is being wilfully difficult. It'll be because (a) it is motivated entirely by the welfare of its own people, (b) those people have no particular interest in doing anything to help Scotland that puts them to trouble or costs them money, and (c) Scotland has little to offer in return. That's all.
Of course it would encounter a hardline attitude. If Scotland voted for independence the remaining government of rUK would take at least as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU did with London after the Brexit vote.
English voters would demand no concessions whatsoever to the Nationalists and to ensure as much of the oil, armed forces etc remained on the English side of the border not the Scottish side and that not a penny more was ever sent north of the border by English taxpayers to Scotland ever again. English fishermen would also demand restrictions on Scottish fishermens access to English fishing grounds.
That would especially very true of a Tory government but even an English Labour government would also have to do so or risk losing English voters to the Tories. Though of course only a Labour minority government reliant on the SNP would allow an indyref2 anyway
I'd agree with that, except that I don't have the impression that the British Government tried, certainly after Dec 2019, to be very co-operative with or even pleasant to, the EU commission.
No but the EU commission as the bigger entity ensured the British government had very tough negotiations to deal with.
In any Scexit however the rUK government would be a bigger entity than the Scottish government and therefore better able to dictate terms
So because the EU Commission bullied* London, you think London could and would bully Edinburgh.
*Precis of what appears to be your view. Not mine.
WilliamGlenn used to make a similar argument regarding the EU IIRC. At the time it seemed an unusual stance for a pro-EU supporter. It's also why my dad says he voted Remain, because they'd hammer us and hold the whip hand (meaning both hands were full I suppose).
But there is something to it. We might hope for saner, more level leads to prevail in the event of a Scexit as a benefit on both sides, but that doesn't seem likely given how much emotion would be involved and the probable political benefits of going full Brexit negotiation nonsense times 100. It seems pretty likely Westminster would whip itself into a frenzy and get political benefit from being uncompromising, even if that was a bad idea. The Brexit arguments would flip, and people saying we had to just accept what the EU offered because they were stronger woudl say the rUK doing so would be outrageous, while the rUK would be saying its all on the winning nationalists to make it work and they cannot pick and choose etc.
It's going to be very rough, I don't look forward to it.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
It would all depend on what iScotland intended as its destination. The major problem for the UK with Brexit was that there was no destination - "we will leave the EU" great, and then do what? Its like the "we will trigger A16" line as if that magically fixes the intra-Irish border.
Surely the destination would be EU membership and with it the Euro. In which case the currency and central bank issue is fixed medium term and can be managed short term as part of the separation process.
I think, then, the SNP just need to make it clear that is the direction of travel. Makes it much more palatable in a post-Brexit world.
While I think @HYUFD is a bit OTT on vindictiveness from Westminster, I do sympathise with that view. At the very least they will want a very short negotiation period (6 months/1 year) to avoid the mess we got in with May.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
And I think J Caesar was an Imperator, though not an emperor, while the emperors were technically just rather long term consuls. It's complicated.
One of the reasons why Julius Caesar was so awesome unlike that loser Hannibal that Caesar became a byword for Emperor.
The Germans made a huge mistake of getting rid of the Kaiser.
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
Assume employers would need to decide etc , same as mortgage countries banks etc. Nothing unusual, look at Euro , all those countries had to change everything. So the blueprint / options are already there, it is nothing NEW as the zealots on here try to pretend. It has all been done many many times and few countries are poorer as a result of being able to hold onto and handle their own finances.
Oh its all been done before. The question is while you are paid in Scottish pounds what happens to the loan / pension payment were the Scottish currency to depreciate / appreciate compared to the (remainder of the) UK pound.
You don't have a problem if everything stays / transfers to the same currency, you do have a problem if only some things change.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
And I think J Caesar was an Imperator, though not an emperor, while the emperors were technically just rather long term consuls. It's complicated.
Yes, it is, but I think the overwhelming view of historians is that you cannot class Caesar as an emperor. The continuity to deep Republican era is much stronger than the continuity with deep Principate era. Indeed, Augustus isn't properly emperor until many years into his reign.
Oh, absolutely. Imperator meant successful general.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Septimius Severus (also York)
?! Surely not? He died there, but he was on campaign in Germania(?) when proclaimed. His rival Albinus was in Britannia.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
And I think J Caesar was an Imperator, though not an emperor, while the emperors were technically just rather long term consuls. It's complicated.
Yes, it is, but I think the overwhelming view of historians is that you cannot class Caesar as an emperor. The continuity to deep Republican era is much stronger than the continuity with deep Principate era. Indeed, Augustus isn't properly emperor until many years into his reign.
Yes, JC wouldn't count, but anyone after that passes muster despite any historical complexity. Statutory reference to Prime Ministers happened pretty late, I believe, but we accept Walpole as being the first, and even if that might have been disputed at the time, the role was established for a long time before things were more formalised IIRC.
Mr. Eabhal, could be wrong but I was under the impression that Halifax/BoS was currently registered in Scotland rather than England.
Correct. Lloyds is a Scottish bank...
Yes, but in the immediate aftermath of Indyref2, the rUK is going to have to work hard to keep these banks safe anyway.
There is lots of undue optimism on one side, and fear mongering on the other. There will be a short term fudge on currency and banking - it's in everyone's interest.
Whilst I understand Scotland's desire for self-determination and the growing despair with what is going on in Westminster, turning Scotland into a very small country is not the best way forward. I'm not making arguments for independence because I don't support independence - but the arguments that it would be easy or it would be ruinous are both daft.
What is needed is clear thinking south of the wall. Where does England want to be? At the moment it has chosen to have the right to have babies even though it can't have babies. Hopefully soon the foetus gestation box will be put away and recognition that it still has and will continue to have shared standards and trading needs with the EU will sink in.
Scottish independence whilst everyone was part of the EU was hard. Now that we have this absurd WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM bravado as the queues on either side of the channel extend for a dozen miles, it feels absurdly hard. But I don't expect that will stay the case for long. And the longer that England's approach to not just abroad but remoaners is "fuck em" the more Scotland and NI get repelled away.
The "WE ARE ENGLAND, FUCK EM" attitude is what scares me about independence.
JRM as rUK PM with HYUFD patrolling the border. Eeeeeek.
This is a fundamental misreading of the entire situation. A secessionist Scotland is highly unlikely to encounter hostility from London, save possibly for a scenario in which an argument blows up over the apportionment of the national debt.
Put crudely, the primary reason for independence and the primary determinant of the post-independence relationship are one and the same: England is ten times the size of Scotland.
Secession is an existential issue for Scots, but an irrelevance to most of the English. Professional politicians and a minority of committed Unionists (who fret about things like nuclear weapons, security council seats and general nebulous angst about the diminution of the greatness of Britain) will worry themselves sick about it, but it wouldn't make a jot of difference to my everyday life nor that of most of my compatriots. For some of those who live very close to the border and for people tasked with managing trade across it: important. For people living three hundred miles to the South who have nothing to do with Scotland save for the occasional holiday: not so much.
Down South, we've had two decades of devolution, one decade of SNP governments in Edinburgh and a narrow defeat for an independence referendum to get used to the idea that a very large chunk of Scottish public opinion wants to leave, and that secession at some point is basically inevitable. The event is already expected: when it happens it's most likely to provoke shoulder shrugging, perhaps accompanied by some regret at the end of an era, rather than a backlash.
If the Scottish Government doesn't get everything it wants out of independence negotiations then it's not going to be because its counterpart in London is being wilfully difficult. It'll be because (a) it is motivated entirely by the welfare of its own people, (b) those people have no particular interest in doing anything to help Scotland that puts them to trouble or costs them money, and (c) Scotland has little to offer in return. That's all.
Of course it would encounter a hardline attitude. If Scotland voted for independence the remaining government of rUK would take at least as hard a line with Edinburgh as the EU did with London after the Brexit vote.
English voters would demand no concessions whatsoever to the Nationalists and to ensure as much of the oil, armed forces etc remained on the English side of the border not the Scottish side and that not a penny more was ever sent north of the border by English taxpayers to Scotland ever again. English fishermen would also demand restrictions on Scottish fishermens access to English fishing grounds.
That would especially very true of a Tory government but even an English Labour government would also have to do so or risk losing English voters to the Tories. Though of course only a Labour minority government reliant on the SNP would allow an indyref2 anyway
I'd agree with that, except that I don't have the impression that the British Government tried, certainly after Dec 2019, to be very co-operative with or even pleasant to, the EU commission.
No but the EU commission as the bigger entity ensured the British government had very tough negotiations to deal with.
In any Scexit however the rUK government would be a bigger entity than the Scottish government and therefore better able to dictate terms
So because the EU Commission bullied* London, you think London could and would bully Edinburgh.
*Precis of what appears to be your view. Not mine.
Of course, realpolitik. If Scots were allowed an indyref2 and voted for independence most English voters would demand no mercy from London with the SNP in Edinburgh and as hard a line as possible.
Exactly as most European voters demanded no mercy from the EU in Brussels with the UK government in London after the Brexit vote.
In the age of covid and culture wars, on the verge of a major cost of living crisis, I’m not sure we’re going through a normal electoral cycle. The supplementaries in the polling certainly suggest that. However, given we now know how flawed the 2010-2015 polling was, I’m not clear when we last did go through what is regarded as a normal electoral cycle.
What’s more, I’d also argue that given the supine failure of all those Tory ministers and MPs, who know just how catastrophically bad Johnson is, to do anything about it, he probably is the best chance they have of turning things around.
My current sense is that we’re probably looking at a 2010-style GE result next time around, with Labour winning most seats but no majority. A propos other current discussions on here it would be interesting to see how the SNP plays that.
I suspect we’re heading to a 1992 result.
Instinctively I would agree, but the actual evidence for that is scant. The economy, for the voting public is going to be horrendous over the next two years unless I am very much mistaken.
The recent wallpaper and parties revelations in themselves are froth (although the misleading Parliament issues would have, in previous administrations had severe consequences) however taken in conjunction with repossessed homes, cars and the burgeoning use of food banks they might bite the Conservatives, under Johnson or anyone else.
Although, as the Johnsonians say on here "Boris is a lucky General"...
For Labour to win there has to be more than distrust and dislike of the Conservatives there has to be trust and enthusiasm for Labour. The Conservatives will ram a wedge into any doubts and if the economy is rocky, they will run on a safety first ticket. Labour needs a huge lead to withstand that.
In my view the events of the past month have made a victory possible, but Labour have a long way to go and a Gordian knot to untangle to avoid a close but no cigar result. How do they mitigate fear and stoke a bit of enthusiasm? They have just two years and are surrounded by enemies and have a Cobyniite fifth column who delight in failure.
It depends what you mean by "win" I think. I can see Starmer getting more seats in a hung Parliament on anti-Conservative sentiment, but I agree it's implausible that he will get a working majority without people being enthsiastic about Labour.
But you're right. Labour won stunningly under the political genius Blair when people were enthused about his alternative, while the deeply mediocre Cameron failed to win a majority against Brown because he didn't have the same level of support behind him.
I was chatting to an MP's assistant during this week's canvass. Her view, which on the whole I share, is that Starmer is methodically working through a programme.
1. Satisfy people that you're not dangerous 2. Satisfy people that you're responsible and patriotic. 3. Establish a good Shadow team. 4. Point out the flaws in Government 5. Develop a small number of policies to enthuse people.
We're at stage 4, which is proving easier than expected. The selection of policies for 5 is obviously crucial - they need to be different enough to generate genuine enthusiasm but neither so numerous or so radical as to put points 1 and 2 in question. Blair's equivalent was the minimum wage and a lot more nurses (they were three others that I can't even remember). Helpfully, the Tories portrayed the minimum wage as lunacy, which most people felt it wasn't, but gave it enough attention to show genuine difference.
Corbyn's approach was 5, 5, 5. And that almost worked in 2017, again helped by the Tories talking up reasonable policies as madness - one national rail network, OMG. But he hadn't done the groundwork of 1-2 and wasn't very interested in 4.
As a leftie I'm impatient to get on to 5, but I do recognise that two years out from the election isn't the time. What does concern me is that I don't see a lot of policy work going on. Tony had think tanks beavering away long before 1997. Do we?
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
And I think J Caesar was an Imperator, though not an emperor, while the emperors were technically just rather long term consuls. It's complicated.
One of the reasons why Julius Caesar was so awesome unlike that loser Hannibal that Caesar became a byword for Emperor.
The Germans made a huge mistake of getting rid of the Kaiser.
I do think HYUFD rather than stodge has it right on the political reaction to Sindy. Even if there is a more even split between sorrow, anger and happiness, anger would drive things by being more motivated, the emotion being more powerful.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
If someone is asking the question 'what would a roman emperor do?' I'd have thought a fair answer would be 'Not reign for very long, be murdered, and be forgotten by most of history'?
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Scotland did not join the Union until Charles IInd had died.
Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
And I think J Caesar was an Imperator, though not an emperor, while the emperors were technically just rather long term consuls. It's complicated.
The emperors often held repeated consulships, but the rank of emperor itself is usually dated from the establishment of the principate by Augustus (which was, itself, at least initially, a title rather than an actual office.) As you say, it's complicated.
If someone is asking the question 'what would a roman emperor do?' I'd have thought a fair answer would be 'Not reign for very long, be murdered, and be forgotten by most of history'?
Here is Gordian III coming to a sticky end in Gibbon
“When the army had elected Philip, who was Prætorian præfect to the third Gordian, the latter demanded that he might remain sole emperor; he was unable to obtain it. He requested that the power might be equally divided between them; the army would not listen to his speech. He consented to be degraded to the rank of Cæsar; the favour was refused him. He desired, at least, he might be appointed Prætorian præfect; his prayer was rejected. Finally, he pleaded for his life. The army, in these several judgments, exercised the supreme magistracy.”
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Scotland did not join the Union until Charles IInd had died.
Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
History shaky there.
Union of the Crowns = 1603. Charles 1 got cancelled 1649. Ergo it was Charles II's army at Worcester. And both most certainly lost Scotland. The second one did get it back eventually - but not for a while.
Following SCG MPs have set up a group to steer rather than resist or replace SKS
• Clive Lewis • Dawn Butler • Lloyd Russell Moyle • Nadia Whittome • Labour whip Nav Mishra • Kim Johnson • Rachel Maskell • Rachel Hopkins • Olivia Blake • Shadow minister Sam Tarry • Paul Sweeney MSP
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
That daft empty cable car thing between the millennium dome and the excel.
Mason Greenwood's girlfriend accuses him of attacking her in shocking Instagram post
WARNING - DISTRESSING CONTENT: Harriet Robson has posted a series of Instagram posts that she claims show the effects of the physical abuse suffered by her at the hands of Manchester United star Mason Greenwood
Mason Greenwood's girlfriend accuses him of attacking her in shocking Instagram post
WARNING - DISTRESSING CONTENT: Harriet Robson has posted a series of Instagram posts that she claims show the effects of the physical abuse suffered by her at the hands of Manchester United star Mason Greenwood
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Was Charles III ever actually crowned? In Scotland or England?
In the age of covid and culture wars, on the verge of a major cost of living crisis, I’m not sure we’re going through a normal electoral cycle. The supplementaries in the polling certainly suggest that. However, given we now know how flawed the 2010-2015 polling was, I’m not clear when we last did go through what is regarded as a normal electoral cycle.
What’s more, I’d also argue that given the supine failure of all those Tory ministers and MPs, who know just how catastrophically bad Johnson is, to do anything about it, he probably is the best chance they have of turning things around.
My current sense is that we’re probably looking at a 2010-style GE result next time around, with Labour winning most seats but no majority. A propos other current discussions on here it would be interesting to see how the SNP plays that.
I suspect we’re heading to a 1992 result.
Instinctively I would agree, but the actual evidence for that is scant. The economy, for the voting public is going to be horrendous over the next two years unless I am very much mistaken.
The recent wallpaper and parties revelations in themselves are froth (although the misleading Parliament issues would have, in previous administrations had severe consequences) however taken in conjunction with repossessed homes, cars and the burgeoning use of food banks they might bite the Conservatives, under Johnson or anyone else.
Although, as the Johnsonians say on here "Boris is a lucky General"...
For Labour to win there has to be more than distrust and dislike of the Conservatives there has to be trust and enthusiasm for Labour. The Conservatives will ram a wedge into any doubts and if the economy is rocky, they will run on a safety first ticket. Labour needs a huge lead to withstand that.
In my view the events of the past month have made a victory possible, but Labour have a long way to go and a Gordian knot to untangle to avoid a close but no cigar result. How do they mitigate fear and stoke a bit of enthusiasm? They have just two years and are surrounded by enemies and have a Cobyniite fifth column who delight in failure.
It depends what you mean by "win" I think. I can see Starmer getting more seats in a hung Parliament on anti-Conservative sentiment, but I agree it's implausible that he will get a working majority without people being enthsiastic about Labour.
But you're right. Labour won stunningly under the political genius Blair when people were enthused about his alternative, while the deeply mediocre Cameron failed to win a majority against Brown because he didn't have the same level of support behind him.
I was chatting to an MP's assistant during this week's canvass. Her view, which on the whole I share, is that Starmer is methodically working through a programme.
1. Satisfy people that you're not dangerous 2. Satisfy people that you're responsible and patriotic. 3. Establish a good Shadow team. 4. Point out the flaws in Government 5. Develop a small number of policies to enthuse people.
We're at stage 4, which is proving easier than expected. The selection of policies for 5 is obviously crucial - they need to be different enough to generate genuine enthusiasm but neither so numerous or so radical as to put points 1 and 2 in question. Blair's equivalent was the minimum wage and a lot more nurses (they were three others that I can't even remember). Helpfully, the Tories portrayed the minimum wage as lunacy, which most people felt it wasn't, but gave it enough attention to show genuine difference.
Corbyn's approach was 5, 5, 5. And that almost worked in 2017, again helped by the Tories talking up reasonable policies as madness - one national rail network, OMG. But he hadn't done the groundwork of 1-2 and wasn't very interested in 4.
As a leftie I'm impatient to get on to 5, but I do recognise that two years out from the election isn't the time. What does concern me is that I don't see a lot of policy work going on. Tony had think tanks beavering away long before 1997. Do we?
I think he needs a Big Idea personally. But as Marc Stears is pointing out in this week's Newstatesman, Labour have been looking for a big idea for a decade or more now and no sign of one.
Mason Greenwood's girlfriend accuses him of attacking her in shocking Instagram post
WARNING - DISTRESSING CONTENT: Harriet Robson has posted a series of Instagram posts that she claims show the effects of the physical abuse suffered by her at the hands of Manchester United star Mason Greenwood
On the header, after having spent a weekend in Manchester and talking about BJ with a variety of people (admittedly a small sample), I’m more convinced that @TSE is wrong.
Both folks - who do switch their votes or just don’t vote if they don’t like anyone - said they are sticking with Boris. Their views was that the parties thing was overblown. More on topic, they both were disdainful of Starmer and Labour.
I then went out with some old friends, two definitely old school Labour (but also not woke - my school friend would be called a TERF) and one who voted for Brexit. All of them said they felt Boris was a leader whereas Starmer wasn’t. They all pointed out the importance of portraying optimism and an upbeat message, and they felt BJ had that and Starmer didn’t. Interestingly, Blair’s name came up and the women talked about how his smiling was a definite plus for them, at least at first.
That didn’t blind them to his faults nor that the Government had cocked up badly on several fronts. But they would much rather have BJ as PM than Starmer. Ironically, the one who was most anti-BJ was the Brexiteer because she didn’t want to be “ruled by toffs”.
PS enthusiasm for Rishi was low. All felt he was untrustworthy and the word ‘sneaky’ came up more than once. I’m not sure Rishi would do much for the Tories outside places like St Albans and, as pointed out, seats with large Indian populations.
OMG A vox-pop anecdote alert.
Whereas your witnesses may well think Starmer isn't presidential enough for them, the anecdotal evidence I am seeing in RedWall Wales is "one rule for Boris, another for the little people" and I see no hostility yet to a CofE that gave us all free money for a year.
Most Welsh subsample polling at the moment shows the Tories better in Wales relatively compared to 2019 than the UK as a whole. Boris of course has ended all restrictions in England unlike Drakeford in Wales
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Scotland did not join the Union until Charles IInd had died.
Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
They still had Scotland in a Union of Crowns, so I don't even know why you are talking about joining 'the' Union later since the question said nothign about it.
And it was a civil war you know, Scots fought on both sides of it, and regardless you make the opposite point you intend, not for the first time - yes, they fought alongside him, and he lost the country when he was 'king'.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Was Charles III ever actually crowned? In Scotland or England?
JackW would probably know!
No; because he had to hotfoot it from Drummossie Muir in 1746 as a Prince, while dad James VIII and IV was still alive. And never came back to either kingdom.
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Scotland did not join the Union until Charles IInd had died.
Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
History shaky there.
Union of the Crowns = 1603. Charles 1 got cancelled 1649. Ergo it was Charles II's army at Worcester. And both most certainly lost Scotland. The second one did get it back eventually - but not for a while.
And Charles III lost Scotland in 1746.
After backing Parliament against King Charles in the first civil war, the Scots switched to backing King Charles and after his execution then his son, Charles, Prince of Wales in the second and third civil wars against Cromwell. That is undeniable.
Bonnie Prince Charlie was never King of Scotland, he led a rebellion of Jacobites against the Hanoverian King of Scotland George IInd that was finally defeated at Culloden
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Was Charles III ever actually crowned? In Scotland or England?
JackW would probably know!
Depending on your particular kingdom, being crowned is not necessary. The king is dead, long live the king and all that.
Charles II was king for 36 years, officially. I don't recall how long Charles 'III' would have been.
I do think HYUFD rather than stodge has it right on the political reaction to Sindy. Even if there is a more even split between sorrow, anger and happiness, anger would drive things by being more motivated, the emotion being more powerful.
I think you are probably right, but there is a possibility of an independent Scotland playing England off against the EU. We will align with you in exchange for favours. A big counter would be Trident but there are quite a few others.
Historically this is how Scotland has played it. There was for example the farcical situation where the English Edward III kept reducing his ransom demand on the Scottish King David II whom he was holding as hostage following the Battle of Neville's Cross. He wanted to send him north to deal with a situation that had developed to Edward's disadvantage. The Scots were saying, you can hang onto him for a bit longer....
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Was Charles III ever actually crowned? In Scotland or England?
JackW would probably know!
I was actually thinking of Charles Philip Arthur George Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.
In the age of covid and culture wars, on the verge of a major cost of living crisis, I’m not sure we’re going through a normal electoral cycle. The supplementaries in the polling certainly suggest that. However, given we now know how flawed the 2010-2015 polling was, I’m not clear when we last did go through what is regarded as a normal electoral cycle.
What’s more, I’d also argue that given the supine failure of all those Tory ministers and MPs, who know just how catastrophically bad Johnson is, to do anything about it, he probably is the best chance they have of turning things around.
My current sense is that we’re probably looking at a 2010-style GE result next time around, with Labour winning most seats but no majority. A propos other current discussions on here it would be interesting to see how the SNP plays that.
I suspect we’re heading to a 1992 result.
Instinctively I would agree, but the actual evidence for that is scant. The economy, for the voting public is going to be horrendous over the next two years unless I am very much mistaken.
The recent wallpaper and parties revelations in themselves are froth (although the misleading Parliament issues would have, in previous administrations had severe consequences) however taken in conjunction with repossessed homes, cars and the burgeoning use of food banks they might bite the Conservatives, under Johnson or anyone else.
Although, as the Johnsonians say on here "Boris is a lucky General"...
For Labour to win there has to be more than distrust and dislike of the Conservatives there has to be trust and enthusiasm for Labour. The Conservatives will ram a wedge into any doubts and if the economy is rocky, they will run on a safety first ticket. Labour needs a huge lead to withstand that.
In my view the events of the past month have made a victory possible, but Labour have a long way to go and a Gordian knot to untangle to avoid a close but no cigar result. How do they mitigate fear and stoke a bit of enthusiasm? They have just two years and are surrounded by enemies and have a Cobyniite fifth column who delight in failure.
It depends what you mean by "win" I think. I can see Starmer getting more seats in a hung Parliament on anti-Conservative sentiment, but I agree it's implausible that he will get a working majority without people being enthsiastic about Labour.
But you're right. Labour won stunningly under the political genius Blair when people were enthused about his alternative, while the deeply mediocre Cameron failed to win a majority against Brown because he didn't have the same level of support behind him.
I was chatting to an MP's assistant during this week's canvass. Her view, which on the whole I share, is that Starmer is methodically working through a programme.
1. Satisfy people that you're not dangerous 2. Satisfy people that you're responsible and patriotic. 3. Establish a good Shadow team. 4. Point out the flaws in Government 5. Develop a small number of policies to enthuse people.
We're at stage 4, which is proving easier than expected. The selection of policies for 5 is obviously crucial - they need to be different enough to generate genuine enthusiasm but neither so numerous or so radical as to put points 1 and 2 in question. Blair's equivalent was the minimum wage and a lot more nurses (they were three others that I can't even remember). Helpfully, the Tories portrayed the minimum wage as lunacy, which most people felt it wasn't, but gave it enough attention to show genuine difference.
Corbyn's approach was 5, 5, 5. And that almost worked in 2017, again helped by the Tories talking up reasonable policies as madness - one national rail network, OMG. But he hadn't done the groundwork of 1-2 and wasn't very interested in 4.
As a leftie I'm impatient to get on to 5, but I do recognise that two years out from the election isn't the time. What does concern me is that I don't see a lot of policy work going on. Tony had think tanks beavering away long before 1997. Do we?
He has succeeded in 1, wont be believed on 2 failed on 3 missed an open goal on 4.
On 5 there is no candidate in the whole of politics less capable of enthusing people
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Scotland did not join the Union until Charles IInd had died.
Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
History shaky there.
Union of the Crowns = 1603. Charles 1 got cancelled 1649. Ergo it was Charles II's army at Worcester. And both most certainly lost Scotland. The second one did get it back eventually - but not for a while.
And Charles III lost Scotland in 1746.
After backing Parliament against King Charles in the first civil war, the Scots switched to backing King Charles and after his execution then his son, Charles, Prince of Wales in the second and third civil wars against Cromwell. That is undeniable.
Bonnie Prince Charlie was never King of Scotland, he led a rebellion of Jacobites against the Hanoverian King of Scotland George IInd that was finally defeated at Culloden
Your first assertion is easily denied as "Scots" includes also the Scots who fought on the other side in the Wars of the Covenant from 1639 to 1746. It's as useful as saying that the 'English' fought for Cromwell. And no competent historian uses words like 'rebellion' nowadays. Far too value laden.
Charles III was most certainly King of Scotland when his father died, in the Jacobites' view. You can't erase history to make up a political fairy tale. Even if Our Island Story is the approved textbook for the Tory Party. ,
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Was Charles III ever actually crowned? In Scotland or England?
JackW would probably know!
I was actually thinking of Charles Philip Arthur George Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
That daft empty cable car thing between the millennium dome and the excel.
Those and also the Boris Bus, which is massively more expensive than other buses and doesn't work quite so well
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
We should be grateful that none was ever built.
Given that the UK is intensively populated with a mature infrastructure network we're well past the point where megalomaniac monuments / grand projects would be worth it.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
That daft empty cable car thing between the millennium dome and the excel.
Those and also the Boris Bus, which is massively more expensive than other buses and doesn't work quite so well
Water cannon too, or do those actually work and were just not needed?
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
Morning Malc.
But answer came there none ...
(Even from Sauna Stu)
I'm going oot now, as it's a glorious day here.)
Sauna Stu is freezing his nuts off, primarily in ice rinks and storms. But thanks for the suggestion: I might pop in the bastu this evening.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
That daft empty cable car thing between the millennium dome and the excel.
But Boris WILL be remembered. He is surely the most consummate donkey ever to have held the post of PM?
Mr. Dickson, one country. I can see why a Scottish separatist would approve of such terms).
I'm English and don't believe in the union. The four countries all have distinct histories and cultures and the union is an artificial device often used in subjugation and oppression.
I think each of the four nations should, if they wish, be separate.
Do you consider the Barnett Formula to be oppressive?
FWIW I couldn’t care less about the Union. But first and foremost it is a currency union. Walk away from the union and you walk away from the pound.
HMQ might have opinions about it being first and foremost a currency union. Her realms were brought under one monarch in 1603, whereas the monetary union was implemented post-1707. She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
The Barnett Formula is a classic Whitehall “fix”: it’s implementation got rid of the annual squabbling.
She is monarch of many countries, few of which share a currency.
That completely undermines your point. An independent Scotland can keep HMQ as head of state. They can’t remain part of the pound currency union.
Independent Ireland was de facto part of the pound currency union until 30 March 1979. It can be done.
The impossible trinity (also known as the impossible trilemma or the Unholy Trinity) is a concept in international economics which states that it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time:
a fixed foreign exchange rate free capital movement (absence of capital controls) an independent monetary policy
Which did Ireland choose to sacrifice - free capital movement or an independent monetary policy? And which would Scotland sacrifice to peg the Scottish Pound to the rUK Pound?
Hopefully we will find out in the very near future
I didn’t realise you wanted to peg to the pound. In reality I’d have thought tracking the BoE monetary policy is the only option.
short term perhaps, Euro for me as soon as feasible. Scottish pound as per now in the interim
Would my salary/flat be restated in Scots pound even though it would be pegged to GBP(a bit like Danish Krone and the Euro)?
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
It would all depend on what iScotland intended as its destination. The major problem for the UK with Brexit was that there was no destination - "we will leave the EU" great, and then do what? Its like the "we will trigger A16" line as if that magically fixes the intra-Irish border.
Surely the destination would be EU membership and with it the Euro. In which case the currency and central bank issue is fixed medium term and can be managed short term as part of the separation process.
If the destination was not only EU membership but the Euro too then Scotland would not really be voting for independence anyway. It would be voting for Berlin and Frankfurt to set its economic policies as Greece discovered during the global financial crisis
That old bollox being regurgitated
@MalcolmG the problem is that to join the EU you also need to join the Euro - that is what the rules now state. And the get out that Denmark / Sweden use has been identified and is no longer exists for newer entrants.
Now you typical Indie supporting Scot probably has zero problem with that but it would mean a bumpy road to get there (own currency pegged to Sterling, remove peg to UK sterling, apply peg to Euro, join Euro) and a risk that the EU turned round and said they didn't want Scotland - granted that's not that likely but it is possible.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Was Charles III ever actually crowned? In Scotland or England?
JackW would probably know!
I was actually thinking of Charles Philip Arthur George Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Scotland did not join the Union until Charles IInd had died.
Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
History shaky there.
Union of the Crowns = 1603. Charles 1 got cancelled 1649. Ergo it was Charles II's army at Worcester. And both most certainly lost Scotland. The second one did get it back eventually - but not for a while.
And Charles III lost Scotland in 1746.
After backing Parliament against King Charles in the first civil war, the Scots switched to backing King Charles and after his execution then his son, Charles, Prince of Wales in the second and third civil wars against Cromwell. That is undeniable.
Bonnie Prince Charlie was never King of Scotland, he led a rebellion of Jacobites against the Hanoverian King of Scotland George IInd that was finally defeated at Culloden
Your first assertion is easily denied as "Scots" includes also the Scots who fought on the other side in the Wars of the Covenant from 1639 to 1746. It's as useful as saying that the 'English' fought for Cromwell. And no competent historian uses words like 'rebellion' nowadays. Far too value laden.
Charles III was most certainly King of Scotland when his father died, in the Jacobites' view. You can't erase history to make up a political fairy tale. Even if Our Island Story is the approved textbook for the Tory Party. ,
My favourite HYUFD civil war 'fact' was that there was no need to be more precise in saying 'Parliament' vs the Rump Parliament, viz a viz execution of the king, in terms of parliamentary legitimacy. Yes, we call the one side Parliament even though a fair old chunk of parliamentarians were on the royalist side, but it is a bit of a stretch to act like a purging of most of the membership by the military makes no difference in how it is viewed. I remember making the analogy that would there be no difference if 'Congress' decided something if Trump forcibly excluded all but non-Trump supporters from it vs Congress doing so on its own.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
That daft empty cable car thing between the millennium dome and the excel.
Those and also the Boris Bus, which is massively more expensive than other buses and doesn't work quite so well
I did not realise that Boris modelled the bus on himself!
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
I wonder how many Roman emperors most people could name off the top of their head without looking. And I wonder how many would say "Julius Caesar", whilst we're at it.
All proud Yorkshirefolk would be able to name Constantine the Great.
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Not the only person to be proclaimed in these islands. Albinus was too, I believe. But he's not canon.
And yes, several (many?) emperors had "Julius Caesar" as part of their name. As quizmaster, I wouldn't allow them this technicality unless they wrote out the full name. That is, to be "given" Tiberius they can either say "Tiberius" or the full "Tiberius Julius Caesar". Specificity is key here. E.g. if you asked which king lost America, you wouldn't accept "George" as the answer.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 3 of them.
Scotland did not join the Union until Charles IInd had died.
Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
History shaky there.
Union of the Crowns = 1603. Charles 1 got cancelled 1649. Ergo it was Charles II's army at Worcester. And both most certainly lost Scotland. The second one did get it back eventually - but not for a while.
And Charles III lost Scotland in 1746.
After backing Parliament against King Charles in the first civil war, the Scots switched to backing King Charles and after his execution then his son, Charles, Prince of Wales in the second and third civil wars against Cromwell. That is undeniable.
Bonnie Prince Charlie was never King of Scotland, he led a rebellion of Jacobites against the Hanoverian King of Scotland George IInd that was finally defeated at Culloden
Your first assertion is easily denied as "Scots" includes also the Scots who fought on the other side in the Wars of the Covenant from 1639 to 1746. It's as useful as saying that the 'English' fought for Cromwell. And no competent historian uses words like 'rebellion' nowadays. Far too value laden.
Charles III was most certainly King of Scotland when his father died, in the Jacobites' view. You can't erase history to make up a political fairy tale. Even if Our Island Story is the approved textbook for the Tory Party. ,
My favourite HYUFD civil war 'fact' was that there was no need to be more precise in saying 'Parliament' vs the Rump Parliament, viz a viz execution of the king, in terms of parliamentary legitimacy. Yes, we call the one side Parliament even though a fair old chunk of parliamentarians were on the royalist side, but it is a bit of a stretch to act like a purging of most of the membership by the military makes no difference in how it is viewed. I remember making the analogy that would there be no difference if 'Congress' decided something if Trump forcibly excluded all but non-Trump supporters from it vs Congress doing so on its own.
Oh yes! That ended up with three categories - including the Wrong Kind of Roundhead. Wrong kinds actually.
What is Johnson interested in? Monuments, says Cummings. (Johnson’s childhood nickname for himself was World King.) Johnson thinks: “What would a Roman emperor do? So, the only thing he was really interested in — genuinely excited about — was, like, looking at maps. Where could he order the building of things?” Cummings says Johnson fantasizes about “monuments to him in an Augustine fashion. ‘I will provide the money. I will be a river to my people. I will provide the money that builds the train station in Birmingham.’ Or whatever. ‘And it will have statues to me, and people will remember me after I am dead like they did the Roman emperors.’”
To all the character faults we attribute to Johnson, we add megalomania. But he seems incompetent at that too. What monuments has he actually created?
Boris Island Airport
Garden Bridge
Bridge across the English Channel
Tunnel to Northern Ireland
New railway system
New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.
We should be grateful that none was ever built.
Given that the UK is intensively populated with a mature infrastructure network we're well past the point where megalomaniac monuments / grand projects would be worth it.
There's something in that. We're somewhat dependent on people telling Johnson, don't be ridiculous. Mind you it cost taxpayers one million pounds to tell Johnson the Bridge to Northern Ireland was ridiculous. Money well spent, I suppose.
Comments
I guess all the Labour MPs in that fine city will lose their seats at the next GE then.
Short term: border, currency = trouble
Long term: no one really knows. But immigration/tax credits for children is a must given the demographic profile.
Exactly the same positive case for the EU (which no one made effectively).
Against that there is a cost in terms of dilution of identity, sovereignty and the freedom to set Scotland specific policies (although devolution means you have a lot of the last already).
Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is a question for Scots to determine but it’s facile to argue that there is no argument on one side or the other
A rematch almost certainly comes after the fall of the Tories, and against a background of Labour likely having dismantled most of what's left of the Union to try to appease the soft pro-independence vote. It may very well work.
The argument presented to voters will go like this: the Scottish Parliament controls most of the tax base and the vast bulk of policy that impacts the everyday lives of Scots, so why change? Is having a separate foreign policy and defence force so vital to you that you're willing to throw the UK's common currency, free trade area and transfer payments in the dustbin - meaning much greater economic uncertainty, a hard border with England, and a combination of austerity and substantially higher taxes for many years?
This line won't make a jot of difference to the hardcore sovereigntists, but they of course don't matter: if the Yes/Leave camp fails to successfully debunk it then it can't win. So long as the UK Government can convince enough of the muddy middle (people who view themselves as purely Scottish, who don't particularly like rule from Westminster and who don't give a flying wotsit about the rest of the UK, but who also view the Union as having transactional benefits,) that independence is going to drain their wallets and empty their pension pots, then the Union is safe.
Great interview by @TanyaGold1
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/dominic-cummings-the-man-trying-to-take-down-boris-johnson.html?utm_source=tw
It looks like a 8% swing to the opposition from the governing coalition whose parties have gone from 50% of the vote at the last election to 42% now with SF up eight to 33.
The current Government would certainly lose its majority and the question for me is what would the Independents do - currently there are 20 of them in the Dail Eireann? As the next election isn't until early 2025, this is all academic for now.
In any Scexit however the rUK government would be a bigger entity than the Scottish government and therefore better able to dictate terms
While my mortgage remains in GBP? Hard sell.
Which would be one threat iScotchland could deploy to get English cooperation. Or currency = renminbi
IF there is a vote for independence, the mood in England, apart from complete indifference among the considerable number with no connection to Scotland in any way, will I suspect be more one of sorrow than anger.
Trying to compare Scotland leaving the United Kingdom with the UK leaving the European Union isn't entirely valid but there are some parallels.
It will not be in the interests of the rest of the UK to deliberately create an impoverished state on its border. I suspect the economic parallel will be nearer to the relationship the Free State and then Eire had with the United Kingdom after 1922 so there'll be no "border" as such pending an independent Scotland's future relationship with the EU, NATO and other global and regional bodies.
No doubt this has all been planned in Whitehall and Holyrood (it should have been) and I suspect these long-held plans will be dusted off the day after an independence vote.
I don't know why some would seek to inflame anti-Scottish anger (or hysteria) apart from to some obscure political advantage. It would be more sensible to tone down the rhetoric, accept the result and seek to find an amicable future relationship (where have I heard that before?)
But carry on...
My quarrel is with your secondhand insults. Don't be dependent on Susie Dent. Go straight to Shakespeare:
“A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.”
*Precis of what appears to be your view. Not mine.
Certainly be lots of employment opportunities.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/09/06/to-fright-the-souls-of-fearful-adversaries-he-capers-nimbly-in-a-ladys-chamber-to-the-lascivious-pleasing-of-a-lute/
Edit - Technically speaking the first Emperor had Julius Caesar in his name.
Surely the destination would be EU membership and with it the Euro. In which case the currency and central bank issue is fixed medium term and can be managed short term as part of the separation process.
Story that Bojo wanted lockdown, Sunak Frost JRM stopped him. Source of story fairly clear:
"When Prof Whitty made his remarks, Mr Sunak was 5,000 miles away in California, having flown out the previous day for his first holiday in two years.
Fearing that the Prime Minister would cave in to the scientists and cancel Christmas, the Chancellor rang Mr Johnson to urge restraint; he then made immediate arrangements to fly back to London.
Mr Sunak, who has been the most consistent opponent of Covid restrictions since the pandemic first broke out, arrived back in the UK on Friday December 17.
He went straight in to No 10 to see the Prime Minister, who was, it is claimed, preparing to use a press conference that weekend to impose new restrictions on social interactions."
I still think BJ will be gone by end of this week; annoyingly just too late for my end Jan bet to pay out
Knives also out at the Times: how long can a PM last when a Times piece begins:
The accepted narrative on Boris Johnson is that he is a liar. He lies, we are told, almost as easily as he breathes. He does it so fluidly and expertly and naturally that it is easier to assume he is lying than he isn’t.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-wallpaper-the-parties-the-animals-they-all-have-one-person-in-common-c2bn5xnn2
Should add the main point. This is a government without policies, whether on levelling up or on Brexit. That accusation can and is being turned at Starmer - correctly so. But they are the opposition. They have that indulgence; governments don't.
In Scotland it is 4:1
Only so much strain the Union can take.
You don't have a problem if everything stays / transfers to the same currency, you do have a problem if only some things change.
Salmond offered RBS help in bank takeover
ALEX Salmond offered the assistance of the Scottish Government to Sir Fred Goodwin for the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro that almost destroyed the Royal Bank of Scotland.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/salmond-offered-rbs-help-bank-takeover-2508146
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/scotland-blog/2012/feb/01/alex-salmond-regrets-backing-goodwin
ETA sorry, died there.
ETA2 so Caracalla and Geta kinda succeeded there
But there is something to it. We might hope for saner, more level leads to prevail in the event of a Scexit as a benefit on both sides, but that doesn't seem likely given how much emotion would be involved and the probable political benefits of going full Brexit negotiation nonsense times 100. It seems pretty likely Westminster would whip itself into a frenzy and get political benefit from being uncompromising, even if that was a bad idea. The Brexit arguments would flip, and people saying we had to just accept what the EU offered because they were stronger woudl say the rUK doing so would be outrageous, while the rUK would be saying its all on the winning nationalists to make it work and they cannot pick and choose etc.
It's going to be very rough, I don't look forward to it.
All 3 of them.
While I think @HYUFD is a bit OTT on vindictiveness from Westminster, I do sympathise with that view. At the very least they will want a very short negotiation period (6 months/1 year) to avoid the mess we got in with May.
The Germans made a huge mistake of getting rid of the Kaiser.
Exactly as most European voters demanded no mercy from the EU in Brussels with the UK government in London after the Brexit vote.
It would be a very, very bitter and tough divorce
1. Satisfy people that you're not dangerous
2. Satisfy people that you're responsible and patriotic.
3. Establish a good Shadow team.
4. Point out the flaws in Government
5. Develop a small number of policies to enthuse people.
We're at stage 4, which is proving easier than expected. The selection of policies for 5 is obviously crucial - they need to be different enough to generate genuine enthusiasm but neither so numerous or so radical as to put points 1 and 2 in question. Blair's equivalent was the minimum wage and a lot more nurses (they were three others that I can't even remember). Helpfully, the Tories portrayed the minimum wage as lunacy, which most people felt it wasn't, but gave it enough attention to show genuine difference.
Corbyn's approach was 5, 5, 5. And that almost worked in 2017, again helped by the Tories talking up reasonable policies as madness - one national rail network, OMG. But he hadn't done the groundwork of 1-2 and wasn't very interested in 4.
As a leftie I'm impatient to get on to 5, but I do recognise that two years out from the election isn't the time. What does concern me is that I don't see a lot of policy work going on. Tony had think tanks beavering away long before 1997. Do we?
- Boris Island Airport
- Garden Bridge
- Bridge across the English Channel
- Tunnel to Northern Ireland
- New railway system
- New royal yacht
Despots in tinpot places like Tajikstan can put up some decent follies. Why is Johnson incapable of the same? World-beating my arse.Scots even fought alongside Prince Charles in the second civil War against Cromwell
“When the army had elected Philip, who was Prætorian præfect to the third Gordian, the latter demanded that he might remain sole emperor; he was unable to obtain it. He requested that the power might be equally divided between them; the army would not listen to his speech. He consented to be degraded to the rank of Cæsar; the favour was refused him. He desired, at least, he might be appointed Prætorian præfect; his prayer was rejected. Finally, he pleaded for his life. The army, in these several judgments, exercised the supreme magistracy.”
Union of the Crowns = 1603. Charles 1 got cancelled 1649. Ergo it was Charles II's army at Worcester. And both most certainly lost Scotland. The second one did get it back eventually - but not for a while.
And Charles III lost Scotland in 1746.
• Clive Lewis
• Dawn Butler
• Lloyd Russell Moyle
• Nadia Whittome
• Labour whip Nav Mishra
• Kim Johnson
• Rachel Maskell
• Rachel Hopkins
• Olivia Blake
• Shadow minister Sam Tarry
• Paul Sweeney MSP
JackW would probably know!
And it was a civil war you know, Scots fought on both sides of it, and regardless you make the opposite point you intend, not for the first time - yes, they fought alongside him, and he lost the country when he was 'king'.
But answer came there none ...
(Even from Sauna Stu)
I'm going oot now, as it's a glorious day here.)
Bonnie Prince Charlie was never King of Scotland, he led a rebellion of Jacobites against the Hanoverian King of Scotland George IInd that was finally defeated at Culloden
Charles II was king for 36 years, officially. I don't recall how long Charles 'III' would have been.
Edit: 22 years it seems.
Historically this is how Scotland has played it. There was for example the farcical situation where the English Edward III kept reducing his ransom demand on the Scottish King David II whom he was holding as hostage following the Battle of Neville's Cross. He wanted to send him north to deal with a situation that had developed to Edward's disadvantage. The Scots were saying, you can hang onto him for a bit longer....
On 5 there is no candidate in the whole of politics less capable of enthusing people
Charles III was most certainly King of Scotland when his father died, in the Jacobites' view. You can't erase history to make up a political fairy tale. Even if Our Island Story is the approved textbook for the Tory Party. ,
Given that the UK is intensively populated with a mature infrastructure network we're well past the point where megalomaniac monuments / grand projects would be worth it.
11 years old but so funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDkVS-AN4NU
Now you typical Indie supporting Scot probably has zero problem with that but it would mean a bumpy road to get there (own currency pegged to Sterling, remove peg to UK sterling, apply peg to Euro, join Euro) and a risk that the EU turned round and said they didn't want Scotland - granted that's not that likely but it is possible.
Which King Charles lost Scotland?
All 4 of them.