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.
No, RBS made a hostile bid for NatWest and took over the company.
BoS thought they were being left behind so bought Halifax (I’ll grant that Lloyds was a rescue once HBOS had messed it all up)
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
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.
Whatever problems Scotland might have if it left, fretting about ending up in the Euro isn't one of them.
Countries that join the European Union (which Scotland might choose to do - I very much doubt it would be rejected, although entry negotiations would take some years,) are all obliged in theory to join the pathway to single currency membership, but in practice a number seem in no hurry to do so and little is being done to persuade them. The EU hierarchy certainly has its fair share of disagreements with Poland, for example, but a desperate desire to see it ditch the zloty isn't amongst them.
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
Doesn't Charles want to be called George or something?
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.
Whatever problems Scotland might have if it left, fretting about ending up in the Euro isn't one of them.
Countries that join the European Union (which Scotland might choose to do - I very much doubt it would be rejected, although entry negotiations would take some years,) are all obliged in theory to join the pathway to single currency membership, but in practice a number seem in no hurry to do so and little is being done to persuade them. The EU hierarchy certainly has its fair share of disagreements with Poland, for example, but a desperate desire to see it ditch the zloty isn't amongst them.
Look at the more recent entrant - Bulgaria. They are due to join the Euro on 1/1/2024.
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.
Whatever problems Scotland might have if it left, fretting about ending up in the Euro isn't one of them.
Countries that join the European Union (which Scotland might choose to do - I very much doubt it would be rejected, although entry negotiations would take some years,) are all obliged in theory to join the pathway to single currency membership, but in practice a number seem in no hurry to do so and little is being done to persuade them. The EU hierarchy certainly has its fair share of disagreements with Poland, for example, but a desperate desire to see it ditch the zloty isn't amongst them.
However the EU has learned a painful lesson from Brexit. You CAN - if you are absolutely determined - secede from the EU if you are NOT in the euro. If you are in the euro, you're stuck. As Greece has discovered. Barring global war or alien invasion, no nation will leave the EU if it is also in the euro. The shock would be calamitous.
Any new entrants to the EU will therefore be obliged to join the euro very fast, to prevent them seceding later. Berlin, Brussels and Paris will ensure this. Scotland will not be given a lazy, easy Swedish-style opt out. Furthermore, to prevent another Greece, Scotland will have to hit the necessary fiscal targets for EU entry, for this same reason. No more rule bending
Given Scotland's appalling fiscal position, this will be hard and might take a decade or two
Whenever the facts of Scottish independence are examined, stuff like this emerges. I am pretty sure that, in time, Scotland could prosper, if it went indy. But there would be a lot of extremely painful years before that happier outcome rolled around
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
O/t perhaps but when did we start referring to regnal numbers as Ist, IInd etc? And my understanding is that when (if?) the current PoW becomes King he'll be George VII Not seen or heard what William will choose; there was never a King William in Scotland IIRC.
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.
I did point out at the beginning it was a small number and that it was a personal view, not an authoritative source.
If you can’t get past your bias of seeing “Tory voter alert!” and discarding anything that contradicts the Holy Gospel of St SKS winning the next election, that’s your problem.
I'm sure your anecdote is accurate but with people you know well you generally don't even need to ask those questions because you'll already know how they'll think. As for your 'Tory Voter Alert' It is a well known phenomenon to editors of phone-ins that people who start the conversation by saying "I'm not a Tory/Labour supporter but....."are invariably trying to mislead so it's taken into account when trying to balance a program
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.
The cable car needs to be on a route favoured by wealthy people in a hurry. Primrose Hill to Harrods, for example.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
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.
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
"The Scottish Parliament [...] having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell." Who knew?
And Charles III WAS King of Scotland in the Jacobites' view - do you never understand what other people are trying to tell you?
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
O/t perhaps but when did we start referring to regnal numbers as Ist, IInd etc? And my understanding is that when (if?) the current PoW becomes King he'll be George VII Not seen or heard what William will choose; there was never a King William in Scotland IIRC.
There was a King William in Scotland, actually: aka William the Lion.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
"The Scottish Parliament [...] having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell." Who knew?
And Charles III WAS King of Scotland in the Jacobites' view - do you never understand what other people are trying to tell you?
Yes, apologies meant against Charles Ist.
It does however not matter what the Jacobites thought, George IInd was already the crowned King of Scotland and his forces defeated their Jacobite rebellion
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
O/t perhaps but when did we start referring to regnal numbers as Ist, IInd etc? And my understanding is that when (if?) the current PoW becomes King he'll be George VII Not seen or heard what William will choose; there was never a King William in Scotland IIRC.
There was one I think (William the Lion). The rule (made up when HM became Queen) was that you take the higher of the possible regnal numbers. So William V followed by George VII or VIII depending on what his grandfather chooses.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
O/t perhaps but when did we start referring to regnal numbers as Ist, IInd etc? And my understanding is that when (if?) the current PoW becomes King he'll be George VII Not seen or heard what William will choose; there was never a King William in Scotland IIRC.
There was a King William in Scotland, actually: aka William the Lion.
Ah, yes, obliged. However, that's going to cause confusion. William I in England was the Conquerer (or Bastard, depending on your view!). His son, William II was the ill-fated William Rufus. William III was the Dutchman, who was, effectively William II of Scotland, except that folk didn't seem to worry about this sort of thing then. As they didn't, AFAIK, in the time of Victoria's uncle William IV. However, people might get steamed up about William V when and if he succeeds his Dad.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
Well if and when Putin invades Ukraine I expect he will still call it in a new union with Russia, even if the Ukrainians disagree.
Though it would be a colony if Ukraine has no members of the Russian Parliament in reality
With all due respect (ie, none) this is a very boring thread
There is no news. The two lead stories on the BBC site are that the NI rise we've known about for months is due to go ahead, and that British UK troops are not going to march on Moscow.
Just catching up. A summary: A Mason has been accused of physically abusing his partner. Happens all the time in Scotland, especially after Glasgow Rangers defeats. Racist right wing Tories like Johnson, JRM, HYUFD and Nigel Foremain will never allow Scotland to be independent. Acting like Putin whilst threatening to go to war against Putin because he is behaving the same way to Ukraine that they do against Scots. Fortunately they will be a powerless opposition after the next election. Also fortunately, most English people are not racist. All Scots bankers will act like Fred the Shred. Scotland’s financial services industry will be unable to survive, unlike those of Switzerland, Jersey, Isle of Man, Singapore, or any other small nation, because …… well, just because. Malc’s Hillman Imp is deceased. (Sorry to hear that, Malc.) Have I missed anything?
With all due respect (ie, none) this is a very boring thread
There is no news. The two lead stories on the BBC site are that the NI rise we've known about for months is due to go ahead, and that British UK troops are not going to march on Moscow.
Nothing has happened.
It is however a beautiful day here in Dorset - azure blue skies and not a breath of wind. There's even some warmth in the sunshine.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
Well if and when Putin invades Ukraine I expect he will still call it in a new union with Russia, even if the Ukrainians disagree.
Though it would be a colony if Ukraine has no members of the Russian Parliament in reality
I expect that part of Ukraine that he annexes will just be incorporated into Russia. Crimea is now just organised as Crimea oblast and Sebastopol Federal City. Nothing special.
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.’”
Let's talk about bottoms, NO, let's talk about the brilliance of the Tang Dynasty Chinese Poet Li Bai (8th century)
DRINKING ALONE UNDER THE MOON
Among the flowers with wine beneath the sky Alone I drink — no friend or kin, just me. I raise my cup to toast the moon on high. That's two of us; my shadow makes it three.
Alas, the poor moon knows not wine's delight. My shadow follows like a living thing. At last with moon and shadow I unite In joyful bond, to seize the last of spring.
I sing: it sets the moon to rock in time. I dance: my shadow cannot hold its place. Sober, we share companionship sublime; Drunk at last, we drift apart in space —
Lost to worldly things, until some day We'll meet again, beyond the Milky Way.
The one phrase "Drunk at last, we drift apart" is one of the most haunting in all of literature, anywhere
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.
The point is politicians need to drive the public mood and not be driven by it.
This is why I could never support the Conservative Party in its current form - they have abandoned principle in favour of populism. Instead of trying to bring public opinion to them (as Margaret Thatcher tried) by argument and debate, they have surrendered to policy by focus group and there is no majority the current Conservative Party won't jump on and try to lead.
There are times when political parties of principle have to stand against the public mood especially if that mood is febrile or hostile or destructive. In the immediate aftermath of a successful Scottish vote for independence some will be angry but that needs to be addressed rather than harnessed (leave that to the likes of Farage and Tice).
It's sad especially on this of all days to see serious political people arguing for an angry and destructive response to a democratic decision.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
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.
What has happened to Scotland is sad. I am not against independence, but the division is turning it in to a miserable place. A significant minority are going to feel as though they have had their identity denied to them, whatever the outcome of the next independence vote. It is probably worse for the unionists in the event of a victory for independence - their country would effectively disappear. One off putting thing about the nationalists is that they seem to lack sufficient awareness or empathy about this, which is likely to hamper the project of nation building (or rebuilding, however you look at it) post independence.
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
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.
In spite of his enthusiasm for monuments, particularly bridges, he still hasn't released the money to repair Hammersmith Bridge. It is still closed to traffic after two and a half years.
Yet he wasted £43m of public money on the aborted Garden Bridge.
The question is being asked: Is this revenge on Richmond Park for chucking out his chum Zac in 2019? He wouldn't be that vindictive, surely? Zac was rewarded with a place in the Lords. Isn't that enough?
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.
What has happened to Scotland is sad. I am not against independence, but the division is turning it in to a miserable place. A significant minority are going to feel as though they have had their identity denied to them, whatever the outcome of the next independence vote. It is probably worse for the unionists in the event of a victory for independence - their country would effectively disappear. One off putting thing about the nationalists is that they seem to lack sufficient awareness or empathy about this, which is likely to hamper the project of nation building (or rebuilding, however you look at it) post independence.
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
I reckon Scotland could see violence, if it ever went indy
A hardcore minority would want brutal revenge for - as you say - having their identity stolen. Cf Ireland, esp the North
There has to be a better way. And I mean that honestly. For the sake of Scotland and its people
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.
What point? I made no point. I merely pointed out that HMQ might disagree.
Point is, you don’t have to be in the union to have HMQ as head of state. You do have to be in the union to have the pound.
I’m sure HMQ would be upset if Scotland went independent. But it’s not a big concern of mine to be honest.
Isle of Man Bailiwick of Jersey Bailiwick of Guernsey St Helena Gibraltar Falkland Islands
All have a local pound. All are not part of the United Kingdom. You keep making this point which is simply wrong.
I don’t believe Guernsey orJersey money is accepted in UK shops though, while Scottish and Ulster notes are. @CarlottaVance would know
No you cannot. At Guernsey airport they ask if you want your change in Guernsey or English notes. The idea that a currency regime that works for a population smaller than Paisley’s could work for the whole country is laughable
Kosovo, Montenegro and Andorra all use the € despite not being in the EU (FWIW). In Switzerland the € is de facto accepted almost everywhere at an exchange rate of 1.
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. ,
The Scottish Parliament fought for King Charles before his execution 373 years ago today and then for Prince Charles having previously fought with the English Parliament against Cromwell.
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
Unless he picks a different regnal name, as he has suggested he will.
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.
What has happened to Scotland is sad. I am not against independence, but the division is turning it in to a miserable place. A significant minority are going to feel as though they have had their identity denied to them, whatever the outcome of the next independence vote. It is probably worse for the unionists in the event of a victory for independence - their country would effectively disappear. One off putting thing about the nationalists is that they seem to lack sufficient awareness or empathy about this, which is likely to hamper the project of nation building (or rebuilding, however you look at it) post independence.
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
I reckon Scotland could see violence, if it ever went indy
A hardcore minority would want brutal revenge for - as you say - having their identity stolen. Cf Ireland, esp the North
There has to be a better way. And I mean that honestly. For the sake of Scotland and its people
Looking through the history of Scotland, having been stimulated to do so by the reference to William the Lion, I would have thought that a violent Scotland would just be reversion to type!
Ed Davie on Sunday Morning Show keeps saying that the energy companies that consumers sign up to are making massive windfall profits on back of the global energy price surge.
In other news, felt shivery and crap yesterday. Turns out I have been visited by Lord Covid at last and have the Omnicold (if the LFT is to be believed!)
On the #Ivermectin, saline nasal rinse, quercetin, paracetamol and ibruprofen.
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.
What has happened to Scotland is sad. I am not against independence, but the division is turning it in to a miserable place. A significant minority are going to feel as though they have had their identity denied to them, whatever the outcome of the next independence vote. It is probably worse for the unionists in the event of a victory for independence - their country would effectively disappear. One off putting thing about the nationalists is that they seem to lack sufficient awareness or empathy about this, which is likely to hamper the project of nation building (or rebuilding, however you look at it) post independence.
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
I genuinely don't think Scotland is a miserable place. Rather less miserable than the UK right now and I live in both places.
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.
What has happened to Scotland is sad. I am not against independence, but the division is turning it in to a miserable place. A significant minority are going to feel as though they have had their identity denied to them, whatever the outcome of the next independence vote. It is probably worse for the unionists in the event of a victory for independence - their country would effectively disappear. One off putting thing about the nationalists is that they seem to lack sufficient awareness or empathy about this, which is likely to hamper the project of nation building (or rebuilding, however you look at it) post independence.
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
I reckon Scotland could see violence, if it ever went indy
A hardcore minority would want brutal revenge for - as you say - having their identity stolen. Cf Ireland, esp the North
There has to be a better way. And I mean that honestly. For the sake of Scotland and its people
Nah, even the Welsh are more up for a fight than us.
PB definitely feels a bit dead at the mo. The Gray report (or lack of it) is sucking the life out of politics in general, like a delayed kick off or mistimed pre-drinks.
I've listened to the same politics podcast, from several different sources, about 10 times this week. The BBC Newscast people sound bored.
Edit: The fact there is a broad consensus that Johnson should go doesn't help.
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.
What has happened to Scotland is sad. I am not against independence, but the division is turning it in to a miserable place. A significant minority are going to feel as though they have had their identity denied to them, whatever the outcome of the next independence vote. It is probably worse for the unionists in the event of a victory for independence - their country would effectively disappear. One off putting thing about the nationalists is that they seem to lack sufficient awareness or empathy about this, which is likely to hamper the project of nation building (or rebuilding, however you look at it) post independence.
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
I reckon Scotland could see violence, if it ever went indy
A hardcore minority would want brutal revenge for - as you say - having their identity stolen. Cf Ireland, esp the North
There has to be a better way. And I mean that honestly. For the sake of Scotland and its people
TM Devine, mentioned earlier, is an advocate for Home Rule. This could be investigated further, but there isn't much appetite for it.
It does feel like a lot of nice and well-intentioned people are naively stumbling in to something very dark. Felt that way to me back in 2014; and nothing has really changed.
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.
What has happened to Scotland is sad. I am not against independence, but the division is turning it in to a miserable place. A significant minority are going to feel as though they have had their identity denied to them, whatever the outcome of the next independence vote. It is probably worse for the unionists in the event of a victory for independence - their country would effectively disappear. One off putting thing about the nationalists is that they seem to lack sufficient awareness or empathy about this, which is likely to hamper the project of nation building (or rebuilding, however you look at it) post independence.
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
I reckon Scotland could see violence, if it ever went indy
A hardcore minority would want brutal revenge for - as you say - having their identity stolen. Cf Ireland, esp the North
There has to be a better way. And I mean that honestly. For the sake of Scotland and its people
Looking through the history off Scotland, having been stimulations;ated to do so by the reference to William the Lion, I would have thought that a violent Scotland would just have been reversion to type!
Well, quite
Indy would be a hideous experiment. I do not blame Scot Nats for seeking it, that is their democratic right (tho they don't get to hold a referendum whenever they want, Britain as a whole needs to agree and consent)
But the idea it could be done easily and quickly is fucking nonsense. It is utterly sui generis. No one has ever broken up a great, successful, 300 year old democracy like Britain before. The nearest example we have is close to home: the secession of Ireland from the UK in the early 20th century. And that was bathed in blood for many years. A brutal horror show, whence it took Ireland decades to recover
Scotland could be similar. A lot of people in Scotland are VERY attached to being British. The idea - if indy ever happens - that they will just shrug and accept this identity being taken away, is foolishly, dangerously complacent
I was trying to join the tedious chorus of familiar and predictable comments. This really is a dour thread
Well you're really quite welcome to fuck off and do something better.
See? I've pepped up the thread already
Piquant. Aliens! WOKE.
Rinse and repeat ad tedium. But sure. "Pepped". Good one, granddad.
You are a close student of my work. Flattering. You'll be pleased to here, son, that I am enjoying an excellent sunset with a fine cold lager, in stark contrast to the awful nightmares of yesterday
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
The GFA allows a border poll every 7 years, if Stormont requests one.
The EU would do whatever it takes to fast track Scotland in as quickly as possible just to spite the English. To deny that is ludicrous.
They really wouldn't. Every EU country has a veto of new states. Including Spain, which has an existential need to make EU secession look extremely painful and problematic, pour encourager les Catalans
Spain would be a fucking pain to Scotland. Denying this is imbecilic
Bah, son has just tested positive on a LFT. Was home for the weekend for an op which never went ahead anyway for other reasons. Fully vaccinated but he's not great, feels really unwell with a very bad cough.
I have gone and got some boxes of LFDs. Thankfully they seem to be readily available again but I think the only responsible thing to do is to work from home this week rather than going to Edinburgh. We are going to lose the cost of his flight too.
The EU would do whatever it takes to fast track Scotland in as quickly as possible just to spite the English. To deny that is ludicrous.
They really wouldn't. Every EU country has a veto of new states. Including Spain, which has an existential need to make EU secession look extremely painful and problematic, pour encourager les Catalans
Spain would be a fucking pain to Scotland. Denying this is imbecilic
A truthful reading of Spain is that they are implacably opposed to UDI but surprisingly relaxed about constitutionally valid independence. Even under the PP, who were much more hardline about these things than the present government, they said as much. It's a common mistake in both unionist and nationalist circles to overegg the parallels between Scotland and Catalonia. In terms of economics, constitution, demographics, and history the two are quite divergent.
Scotland is of less interest to Spain now that the UK are in no position to return the favour and veto Catalan membership.
The EU would do whatever it takes to fast track Scotland in as quickly as possible just to spite the English. To deny that is ludicrous.
They really wouldn't. Every EU country has a veto of new states. Including Spain, which has an existential need to make EU secession look extremely painful and problematic, pour encourager les Catalans
Spain would be a fucking pain to Scotland. Denying this is imbecilic
A truthful reading of Spain is that they are implacably opposed to UDI but surprisingly relaxed about constitutionally valid independence. Even under the PP, who were much more hardline about these things than the present government, they said as much. It's a common mistake in both unionist and nationalist circles to overegg the parallels between Scotland and Catalonia. In terms of economics, constitution, demographics, and history the two are quite divergent.
I make this your tenth fucking boring comment in a row. I am trying to improve the thread. You're not helping.
I know you're not very funny but just.... try? PM if you need help or ideas. Honest offer
Bah, son has just tested positive on a LFT. Was home for the weekend for an op which never went ahead anyway for other reasons. Fully vaccinated but he's not great, feels really unwell with a very bad cough.
I have gone and got some boxes of LFDs. Thankfully they seem to be readily available again but I think the only responsible thing to do is to work from home this week rather than going to Edinburgh. We are going to lose the cost of his flight too.
Bad luck. Hope your son is ok.
My wife has now just got it, 6 days on from my positive test. Means our COVID free son is going to have to miss school as we are both self isolating and no one who can do the school run for us.
We've gone through boxes and boxes of LFT tests, we are using 3 tests a day at the moment - in line with the government rules. Fortunately they seem to be delivered the next day when you put in an online order.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
I agree with this. The Union is of consent as it was in both 1707 and 2014. That is an essential element and that means that Scots have the right to withdraw that consent, whatever England thinks. The reverse is also true, of course. If the Scots continue to make a nuisance of themselves by continuously whining about this and holding referendums the rUK may also express a view as to whether this Union is working for them. As they would be entitled to do.
About Liverpool signing Luis Diaz ahead of Tottenham Hotspur.
Come Thursday, when Levy finally learned just how far down the road Liverpool’s recruitment team had progressed with Diaz, there was precious little he could do about it.
Well-placed sources say that Levy threatened to report Liverpool’s recruitment staff to Fenway owners John W Henry and Mike Gordon. The key flaw in that plan being that Henry and Gordon were delighted with the strategy pursued.
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.
Well it will be one of the other, at present I have shares all round the world in various currencies and so my pension money goes up and down based on many many factors. If we were in Euro why would we care about teh pound and if Scottish pound did well why would again care about the pound. I fail to see the difference to today where your money is invested somewhere and can be affected either way by many currencies. It has been done many many times and I have yet to hear of any country begging to be a colony again so cannot be that bad. Or maybe that is just my dementia speaking.
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.
In spite of his enthusiasm for monuments, particularly bridges, he still hasn't released the money to repair Hammersmith Bridge. It is still closed to traffic after two and a half years.
Yet he wasted £43m of public money on the aborted Garden Bridge.
The question is being asked: Is this revenge on Richmond Park for chucking out his chum Zac in 2019? He wouldn't be that vindictive, surely? Zac was rewarded with a place in the Lords. Isn't that enough?
The political optics of spending bridge money in Boat Race land aren't good.
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.
Well it will be one of the other, at present I have shares all round the world in various currencies and so my pension money goes up and down based on many many factors. If we were in Euro why would we care about teh pound and if Scottish pound did well why would again care about the pound. I fail to see the difference to today where your money is invested somewhere and can be affected either way by many currencies. It has been done many many times and I have yet to hear of any country begging to be a colony again so cannot be that bad. Or maybe that is just my dementia speaking.
If you were in the Euro you would be effectively a colony of Frankfurt and Berlin
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.)
Morning Matt, we are supposedly getting another storm , bit windy and damp at present.
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.
HYFUD gets nothing right, he is too bigotted to even think reality. It is the cult version every time.
I would think an independent Scotland could launch a new Scottish Pound pegged to Sterling in the near term, with a long term goal of joining the Euro. That would mean currency stability throughout, but at the price of monetary independence. Many European countries manage without that though.
Take the same approach for trade. Remain part of the UK single market until ready to join the European one. Put in place suitable transition arrangements.
As a Londoner I would regret Scotland leaving, but it is their free choice to do so. If they want to win, appeals for Unionism should be aimed at our shared values and culture, not the technical hurdles a newly independent country would face. But I suspect it's a losing battle.
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.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
I agree with this. The Union is of consent as it was in both 1707 and 2014. That is an essential element and that means that Scots have the right to withdraw that consent, whatever England thinks. The reverse is also true, of course. If the Scots continue to make a nuisance of themselves by continuously whining about this and holding referendums the rUK may also express a view as to whether this Union is working for them. As they would be entitled to do.
Scots absolutely have the right to withdraw that consent, but the Scot Nats don't have the right to hold referendums every other year until they win one
These are two different issues. The parliament at Westminster governs for the benefit of the whole UK, including Scotland (and indy Scotland would affect everyone in the UK, economically and politically, so that is only right). This is why Sindy referendums are reserved to Westminster to grant, or not
Once in a generation is a pretty good rule of thumb, no country could withstand the instability of more frequent secession-attempts than that. And Scotland - let it be noted - does have the right of secession, unlike Catalonia, or US states, or Corsica, or Brittany, or many other places in the world where smaller bits of nations might fancy a breakaway
I am sure there will be an indyref2, just as there was a 2nd Quebec ref. 15-20 years after the first - a generation - seems right. Early 2030s?
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
Unions do not need repeated consent every year to still be unions. They only require representation of all nations, states or regions in the in the Federal or national Parliament.
That is the main thing that distinguishes a Union from a colony
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.
Well it will be one of the other, at present I have shares all round the world in various currencies and so my pension money goes up and down based on many many factors. If we were in Euro why would we care about teh pound and if Scottish pound did well why would again care about the pound. I fail to see the difference to today where your money is invested somewhere and can be affected either way by many currencies. It has been done many many times and I have yet to hear of any country begging to be a colony again so cannot be that bad. Or maybe that is just my dementia speaking.
If you were in the Euro you would be effectively a colony of Frankfurt and Berlin
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.
Well it will be one of the other, at present I have shares all round the world in various currencies and so my pension money goes up and down based on many many factors. If we were in Euro why would we care about teh pound and if Scottish pound did well why would again care about the pound. I fail to see the difference to today where your money is invested somewhere and can be affected either way by many currencies. It has been done many many times and I have yet to hear of any country begging to be a colony again so cannot be that bad. Or maybe that is just my dementia speaking.
If you were in the Euro you would be effectively a colony of Frankfurt and Berlin
Much better that than London.
Tell that to Greece.
Berlin and Frankfurt imposed far harsher austerity on the Greeks post GFC than London ever did on the Scots
Gosh, Rafa is absolutely dripping after only 15 mins! He might be good but he's no Prince Andrew.
I don't think he's going to last very long, you know. That's not down to exhaustion though. Daniil is too good.
Three-and-a-half hours later and we're onto the fifth set, with Nadal having come from 2-0 down to level. He's quite something. Unlike my powers of prediction.
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.
It is an opinion I suppose , even possible but far from certain. Time will tell if we get a real leader interested in independence. Once Westminster give |Sturgeon the fancy job she covets we will be likely to see the reality.
One thing I would mention is that while dentists and opticians have lots of shiny new tech kit, you could walk into many GPs surgeries and not notice much change since the 1950s, except that the doctor uses a keyboard rather than a fountain pen and has plastic not rubber tubes on their stethoscope.
Your final point is why I think we need to radically rethink what GPs are for (if anything). Does a General Practitioner make any sense after a century of medical scientific progress?
It's perhaps a bit unfair, but only a bit, but I feel that GPs aren't much more than very expensive receptionists for the NHS.
If we think of which bits of the NHS are struggling most it is primary care, public health and dealing with chronic conditions - all things that ought to be within the remit of GPs.
Indy would be a hideous experiment. I do not blame Scot Nats for seeking it, that is their democratic right (tho they don't get to hold a referendum whenever they want, Britain as a whole needs to agree and consent)
But the idea it could be done easily and quickly is fucking nonsense. It is utterly sui generis. No one has ever broken up a great, successful, 300 year old democracy like Britain before. The nearest example we have is close to home: the secession of Ireland from the UK in the early 20th century. And that was bathed in blood for many years. A brutal horror show, whence it took Ireland decades to recover
Scotland could be similar. A lot of people in Scotland are VERY attached to being British. The idea - if indy ever happens - that they will just shrug and accept this identity being taken away, is foolishly, dangerously complacent
I suppose Czechoslovakia is a reasonably positive example. Created in 1918 out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it worked quite harmoniously in ethnic terms through any amount of war, turmoil and dramatic change. In 1993, they split up, also AFAIK fairly harmoniously, and they still seem to get on all right, even though they've taken different political directions. Contrast with the nightmare of Yugoslavia. (I don't know that much about either so others may correct me.)
But I can't think of any examples of a reasonably harmonious split that was later reversed when on reflection people came to think it was a pity. Which makes the "Rejoin" dream for the UK and EU very distant. I can see a customs union returning, since the ability to set different customs terms and teriffs was never really the driving force for Brexit, and few people think it's working out very well. But the idea of being politically separate will be with us for a long time.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
The GFA allows a border poll every 7 years, if Stormont requests one.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
I agree with this. The Union is of consent as it was in both 1707 and 2014. That is an essential element and that means that Scots have the right to withdraw that consent, whatever England thinks. The reverse is also true, of course. If the Scots continue to make a nuisance of themselves by continuously whining about this and holding referendums the rUK may also express a view as to whether this Union is working for them. As they would be entitled to do.
Scots absolutely have the right to withdraw that consent, but the Scot Nats don't have the right to hold referendums every other year until they win one
These are two different issues. The parliament at Westminster governs for the benefit of the whole UK, including Scotland (and indy Scotland would affect everyone in the UK, economically and politically, so that is only right). This is why Sindy referendums are reserved to Westminster to grant, or not
Once in a generation is a pretty good rule of thumb, no country could withstand the instability of more frequent secession-attempts than that. And Scotland - let it be noted - does have the right of secession, unlike Catalonia, or US states, or Corsica, or Brittany, or many other places in the world where smaller bits of nations might fancy a breakaway
I am sure there will be an indyref2, just as there was a 2nd Quebec ref. 15-20 years after the first - a generation - seems right. Early 2030s?
Scotland very narrowly voted for a second referendum last year. I deeply regret that decision and have no doubt it will do more economic damage to Scotland as 2014 did. But I still think we need to respect it. If we don't then the Union could be fatally undermined.
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.
Whatever problems Scotland might have if it left, fretting about ending up in the Euro isn't one of them.
Countries that join the European Union (which Scotland might choose to do - I very much doubt it would be rejected, although entry negotiations would take some years,) are all obliged in theory to join the pathway to single currency membership, but in practice a number seem in no hurry to do so and little is being done to persuade them. The EU hierarchy certainly has its fair share of disagreements with Poland, for example, but a desperate desire to see it ditch the zloty isn't amongst them.
However the EU has learned a painful lesson from Brexit. You CAN - if you are absolutely determined - secede from the EU if you are NOT in the euro. If you are in the euro, you're stuck. As Greece has discovered. Barring global war or alien invasion, no nation will leave the EU if it is also in the euro. The shock would be calamitous.
Any new entrants to the EU will therefore be obliged to join the euro very fast, to prevent them seceding later. Berlin, Brussels and Paris will ensure this. Scotland will not be given a lazy, easy Swedish-style opt out. Furthermore, to prevent another Greece, Scotland will have to hit the necessary fiscal targets for EU entry, for this same reason. No more rule bending
Given Scotland's appalling fiscal position, this will be hard and might take a decade or two
Whenever the facts of Scottish independence are examined, stuff like this emerges. I am pretty sure that, in time, Scotland could prosper, if it went indy. But there would be a lot of extremely painful years before that happier outcome rolled around
@Leon Once away from basket case England and not tied to paying for their borrowing etc , things will steady very quickly. They will not be spaffing away borrowed cash on pretendy armies, Tory Hooray's bank accounts or London infrastructure.
The EU would do whatever it takes to fast track Scotland in as quickly as possible just to spite the English. To deny that is ludicrous.
They really wouldn't. Every EU country has a veto of new states. Including Spain, which has an existential need to make EU secession look extremely painful and problematic, pour encourager les Catalans
Spain would be a fucking pain to Scotland. Denying this is imbecilic
A truthful reading of Spain is that they are implacably opposed to UDI but surprisingly relaxed about constitutionally valid independence. Even under the PP, who were much more hardline about these things than the present government, they said as much. It's a common mistake in both unionist and nationalist circles to overegg the parallels between Scotland and Catalonia. In terms of economics, constitution, demographics, and history the two are quite divergent.
The only constitutionally valid independence in the UK is with Westminster approval yes
Bah, son has just tested positive on a LFT. Was home for the weekend for an op which never went ahead anyway for other reasons. Fully vaccinated but he's not great, feels really unwell with a very bad cough.
I have gone and got some boxes of LFDs. Thankfully they seem to be readily available again but I think the only responsible thing to do is to work from home this week rather than going to Edinburgh. We are going to lose the cost of his flight too.
Bad luck. Hope your son is ok.
My wife has now just got it, 6 days on from my positive test. Means our COVID free son is going to have to miss school as we are both self isolating and no one who can do the school run for us.
We've gone through boxes and boxes of LFT tests, we are using 3 tests a day at the moment - in line with the government rules. Fortunately they seem to be delivered the next day when you put in an online order.
Yes my wife got it too, we are both isolating at present
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
I agree with this. The Union is of consent as it was in both 1707 and 2014. That is an essential element and that means that Scots have the right to withdraw that consent, whatever England thinks. The reverse is also true, of course. If the Scots continue to make a nuisance of themselves by continuously whining about this and holding referendums the rUK may also express a view as to whether this Union is working for them. As they would be entitled to do.
Surprise Surprise they have never chanced that option as they know they are milking us and do not want to kill the golden Goose.
Bah, son has just tested positive on a LFT. Was home for the weekend for an op which never went ahead anyway for other reasons. Fully vaccinated but he's not great, feels really unwell with a very bad cough.
I have gone and got some boxes of LFDs. Thankfully they seem to be readily available again but I think the only responsible thing to do is to work from home this week rather than going to Edinburgh. We are going to lose the cost of his flight too.
Seeing it means that nothing should go wrong again in affairs of the heart, apparently. If I was to choose someone to test that fancy to destruction....
One thing I would mention is that while dentists and opticians have lots of shiny new tech kit, you could walk into many GPs surgeries and not notice much change since the 1950s, except that the doctor uses a keyboard rather than a fountain pen and has plastic not rubber tubes on their stethoscope.
Your final point is why I think we need to radically rethink what GPs are for (if anything). Does a General Practitioner make any sense after a century of medical scientific progress?
It's perhaps a bit unfair, but only a bit, but I feel that GPs aren't much more than very expensive receptionists for the NHS.
If we think of which bits of the NHS are struggling most it is primary care, public health and dealing with chronic conditions - all things that ought to be within the remit of GPs.
They're an expensive waste of time.
General Practice is from a different era where a GP had time to know a patient and deal with them. I'm not 100% sure that model works in the 21st century
The EU would do whatever it takes to fast track Scotland in as quickly as possible just to spite the English. To deny that is ludicrous.
They really wouldn't. Every EU country has a veto of new states. Including Spain, which has an existential need to make EU secession look extremely painful and problematic, pour encourager les Catalans
Spain would be a fucking pain to Scotland. Denying this is imbecilic
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
I agree with this. The Union is of consent as it was in both 1707 and 2014. That is an essential element and that means that Scots have the right to withdraw that consent, whatever England thinks. The reverse is also true, of course. If the Scots continue to make a nuisance of themselves by continuously whining about this and holding referendums the rUK may also express a view as to whether this Union is working for them. As they would be entitled to do.
Surprise Surprise they have never chanced that option as they know they are milking us and do not want to kill the golden Goose.
The Golden Goose is the city of London, Canary Wharf and South East of England and Oxford and Cambridge.
The EU would do whatever it takes to fast track Scotland in as quickly as possible just to spite the English. To deny that is ludicrous.
They really wouldn't. Every EU country has a veto of new states. Including Spain, which has an existential need to make EU secession look extremely painful and problematic, pour encourager les Catalans
Spain would be a fucking pain to Scotland. Denying this is imbecilic
A truthful reading of Spain is that they are implacably opposed to UDI but surprisingly relaxed about constitutionally valid independence. Even under the PP, who were much more hardline about these things than the present government, they said as much. It's a common mistake in both unionist and nationalist circles to overegg the parallels between Scotland and Catalonia. In terms of economics, constitution, demographics, and history the two are quite divergent.
I make this your tenth fucking boring comment in a row. I am trying to improve the thread. You're not helping.
I know you're not very funny but just.... try? PM if you need help or ideas. Honest offer
May be boring but it is the truth and very factual. Idiots trying to pretend any connection or similarity are absolutely barking and in HYFUD territory on the madness scale.
I would think an independent Scotland could launch a new Scottish Pound pegged to Sterling in the near term, with a long term goal of joining the Euro. That would mean currency stability throughout, but at the price of monetary independence. Many European countries manage without that though.
Take the same approach for trade. Remain part of the UK single market until ready to join the European one. Put in place suitable transition arrangements.
As a Londoner I would regret Scotland leaving, but it is their free choice to do so. If they want to win, appeals for Unionism should be aimed at our shared values and culture, not the technical hurdles a newly independent country would face. But I suspect it's a losing battle.
A Scottish pound pegged to Sterling would require Scottish public spending cuts.
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.
I agree with these reasons for Union.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
It is refusing indyref2, hence no damage
Language question. Is a union without consent actually a union?
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
The Scots consented 1. when they willingly and legally entered the Union in 1707, and they consented again when they were democratically asked in 2014, and they said they wanted to Remain in the UK
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to point @HYUFD is making, I believe: the Union is preserved by not allowing that choice to be made and whether Scots consent to the Union or not is immaterial to whether they are part of it. This thinking is close to that of the UK government, I believe, and a change from the implied consent that has been the model for the Union for most of its history.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
I agree with this. The Union is of consent as it was in both 1707 and 2014. That is an essential element and that means that Scots have the right to withdraw that consent, whatever England thinks. The reverse is also true, of course. If the Scots continue to make a nuisance of themselves by continuously whining about this and holding referendums the rUK may also express a view as to whether this Union is working for them. As they would be entitled to do.
Scots absolutely have the right to withdraw that consent, but the Scot Nats don't have the right to hold referendums every other year until they win one
These are two different issues. The parliament at Westminster governs for the benefit of the whole UK, including Scotland (and indy Scotland would affect everyone in the UK, economically and politically, so that is only right). This is why Sindy referendums are reserved to Westminster to grant, or not
Once in a generation is a pretty good rule of thumb, no country could withstand the instability of more frequent secession-attempts than that. And Scotland - let it be noted - does have the right of secession, unlike Catalonia, or US states, or Corsica, or Brittany, or many other places in the world where smaller bits of nations might fancy a breakaway
I am sure there will be an indyref2, just as there was a 2nd Quebec ref. 15-20 years after the first - a generation - seems right. Early 2030s?
Scotland very narrowly voted for a second referendum last year. I deeply regret that decision and have no doubt it will do more economic damage to Scotland as 2014 did. But I still think we need to respect it. If we don't then the Union could be fatally undermined.
No. If Westminster grants a 2nd referendum now, then it would be admitting and yielding the principle that Scotland can call a vote whenever there is a SNP maj or SNP led government in Holyrood. ie there could be a referendum a year if Sturgeon so decides. This is not tenable, it destabilises the whole UK not just Scotland
Westminster needs to stand firm and say No. Once a generation, at most. But let it be a free vote, unwhipped. If the Scots can persuade a majority of the UK's MPs (including Scotland's MPs) that they have a moral right to another referendum, so be it
I take your point that this risks endangering the union further. But so does yielding on the principle that Westminster decides when referendums happen, not Holyrood. There are risks either way
And I do believe there SHOULD be a 2nd indyref, at some point. But a new generation needs to arise, in Scotland, to make a new decision
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.
Whatever problems Scotland might have if it left, fretting about ending up in the Euro isn't one of them.
Countries that join the European Union (which Scotland might choose to do - I very much doubt it would be rejected, although entry negotiations would take some years,) are all obliged in theory to join the pathway to single currency membership, but in practice a number seem in no hurry to do so and little is being done to persuade them. The EU hierarchy certainly has its fair share of disagreements with Poland, for example, but a desperate desire to see it ditch the zloty isn't amongst them.
Look at the more recent entrant - Bulgaria. They are due to join the Euro on 1/1/2024.
I would think an independent Scotland could launch a new Scottish Pound pegged to Sterling in the near term, with a long term goal of joining the Euro. That would mean currency stability throughout, but at the price of monetary independence. Many European countries manage without that though.
Take the same approach for trade. Remain part of the UK single market until ready to join the European one. Put in place suitable transition arrangements.
As a Londoner I would regret Scotland leaving, but it is their free choice to do so. If they want to win, appeals for Unionism should be aimed at our shared values and culture, not the technical hurdles a newly independent country would face. But I suspect it's a losing battle.
A Scottish pound pegged to Sterling would require Scottish public spending cuts.
I would think an independent Scotland could launch a new Scottish Pound pegged to Sterling in the near term, with a long term goal of joining the Euro. That would mean currency stability throughout, but at the price of monetary independence. Many European countries manage without that though.
Take the same approach for trade. Remain part of the UK single market until ready to join the European one. Put in place suitable transition arrangements.
As a Londoner I would regret Scotland leaving, but it is their free choice to do so. If they want to win, appeals for Unionism should be aimed at our shared values and culture, not the technical hurdles a newly independent country would face. But I suspect it's a losing battle.
There is no UK single market at the moment - but as the status quo is untenable and won't last the year a solution to the border would already have been found and implemented for GB - NI/EU
Comments
BoS thought they were being left behind so bought Halifax (I’ll grant that Lloyds was a rescue once HBOS had messed it all up)
Charles IIIrd was never King of Scotland, George IInd was having already been crowned so. Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite rebels were defeated by the forces of the King at Culloden so his and his supporter's dreams of making him Charles IIIrd failed.
The Prince of Wales however will be King Charles IIIrd of England and Scotland when the Queen dies
Countries that join the European Union (which Scotland might choose to do - I very much doubt it would be rejected, although entry negotiations would take some years,) are all obliged in theory to join the pathway to single currency membership, but in practice a number seem in no hurry to do so and little is being done to persuade them. The EU hierarchy certainly has its fair share of disagreements with Poland, for example, but a desperate desire to see it ditch the zloty isn't amongst them.
Any new entrants to the EU will therefore be obliged to join the euro very fast, to prevent them seceding later. Berlin, Brussels and Paris will ensure this. Scotland will not be given a lazy, easy Swedish-style opt out. Furthermore, to prevent another Greece, Scotland will have to hit the necessary fiscal targets for EU entry, for this same reason. No more rule bending
Given Scotland's appalling fiscal position, this will be hard and might take a decade or two
Whenever the facts of Scottish independence are examined, stuff like this emerges. I am pretty sure that, in time, Scotland could prosper, if it went indy. But there would be a lot of extremely painful years before that happier outcome rolled around
And my understanding is that when (if?) the current PoW becomes King he'll be George VII
Not seen or heard what William will choose; there was never a King William in Scotland IIRC.
I don't think the UK is unique in being a force for good. I am sure an independent Scotland would be too. In any case it's more an aspiration than a actual fact.
We cannot overestimate the damage the current regime in London is doing to the Union however.
And Charles III WAS King of Scotland in the Jacobites' view - do you never understand what other people are trying to tell you?
It does however not matter what the Jacobites thought, George IInd was already the crowned King of Scotland and his forces defeated their Jacobite rebellion
With all due respect (ie, none) this is a very boring thread
(Maybe not quite straightforward. Thinks American Civil War)
However, people might get steamed up about William V when and if he succeeds his Dad.
They can't expect to be asked to reconfirm this consent every other Tuesday, they have full representation at Westminster with their MPs, they need to persuade their parliament and our parliament at Westminster that it is time to grant ANOTHER referendum, to ask the same question. My bet is that won't happen until the 2030s
Though it would be a colony if Ukraine has no members of the Russian Parliament in reality
BritishUK troops are not going to march on Moscow.Nothing has happened.
A Mason has been accused of physically abusing his partner. Happens all the time in Scotland, especially after Glasgow Rangers defeats.
Racist right wing Tories like Johnson, JRM, HYUFD and Nigel Foremain will never allow Scotland to be independent. Acting like Putin whilst threatening to go to war against Putin because he is behaving the same way to Ukraine that they do against Scots. Fortunately they will be a powerless opposition after the next election. Also fortunately, most English people are not racist.
All Scots bankers will act like Fred the Shred.
Scotland’s financial services industry will be unable to survive, unlike those of Switzerland, Jersey, Isle of Man, Singapore, or any other small nation, because …… well, just because.
Malc’s Hillman Imp is deceased. (Sorry to hear that, Malc.)
Have I missed anything?
In which he reveals himself to be the power behind the throne in his own mind
DRINKING ALONE UNDER THE MOON
Among the flowers with wine beneath the sky
Alone I drink — no friend or kin, just me.
I raise my cup to toast the moon on high.
That's two of us; my shadow makes it three.
Alas, the poor moon knows not wine's delight.
My shadow follows like a living thing.
At last with moon and shadow I unite
In joyful bond, to seize the last of spring.
I sing: it sets the moon to rock in time.
I dance: my shadow cannot hold its place.
Sober, we share companionship sublime;
Drunk at last, we drift apart in space —
Lost to worldly things, until some day
We'll meet again, beyond the Milky Way.
The one phrase "Drunk at last, we drift apart" is one of the most haunting in all of literature, anywhere
This is why I could never support the Conservative Party in its current form - they have abandoned principle in favour of populism. Instead of trying to bring public opinion to them (as Margaret Thatcher tried) by argument and debate, they have surrendered to policy by focus group and there is no majority the current Conservative Party won't jump on and try to lead.
There are times when political parties of principle have to stand against the public mood especially if that mood is febrile or hostile or destructive. In the immediate aftermath of a successful Scottish vote for independence some will be angry but that needs to be addressed rather than harnessed (leave that to the likes of Farage and Tice).
It's sad especially on this of all days to see serious political people arguing for an angry and destructive response to a democratic decision.
At least Tom Devine who is an expert on the history of the Union thinks this to be the case. Refer to his introduction to this seminar:
https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/resist-reform-or-re-run-short-and-long-term-reflections-scotland-and
I suppose that my own view as an outsider, is that independence would be a lot of turmoil, and a lot of difficult problems and compromises, all of which would have an economic impact. But on the ground, and in terms of peoples lives, things may not change very much, and it could actually be negative. What could the Scottish government do if it is independent, that it cannot do now under devolution, which seems to be quite a good deal? Is this really about anything more than fulfilling a sense of national identity felt by a significant minority?
I think there is also a fundamental problem regarding defence. If the UK and independent Scottish government have diverging views on this, it would be extremely bad news for the west as a whole.
Yet he wasted £43m of public money on the aborted Garden Bridge.
The question is being asked: Is this revenge on Richmond Park for chucking out his chum Zac in 2019? He wouldn't be that vindictive, surely? Zac was rewarded with a place in the Lords. Isn't that enough?
A hardcore minority would want brutal revenge for - as you say - having their identity stolen. Cf Ireland, esp the North
There has to be a better way. And I mean that honestly. For the sake of Scotland and its people
Is this correct?
Many of them have gone to the wall.
On the #Ivermectin, saline nasal rinse, quercetin, paracetamol and ibruprofen.
More man flu than Wu-flu at the moment. https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1487717401152176128/photo/1
PB definitely feels a bit dead at the mo. The Gray report (or lack of it) is sucking the life out of politics in general, like a delayed kick off or mistimed pre-drinks.
I've listened to the same politics podcast, from several different sources, about 10 times this week. The BBC Newscast people sound bored.
Edit: The fact there is a broad consensus that Johnson should go doesn't help.
It does feel like a lot of nice and well-intentioned people are naively stumbling in to something very dark. Felt that way to me back in 2014; and nothing has really changed.
Indy would be a hideous experiment. I do not blame Scot Nats for seeking it, that is their democratic right (tho they don't get to hold a referendum whenever they want, Britain as a whole needs to agree and consent)
But the idea it could be done easily and quickly is fucking nonsense. It is utterly sui generis. No one has ever broken up a great, successful, 300 year old democracy like Britain before. The nearest example we have is close to home: the secession of Ireland from the UK in the early 20th century. And that was bathed in blood for many years. A brutal horror show, whence it took Ireland decades to recover
Scotland could be similar. A lot of people in Scotland are VERY attached to being British. The idea - if indy ever happens - that they will just shrug and accept this identity being taken away, is foolishly, dangerously complacent
Spain would be a fucking pain to Scotland. Denying this is imbecilic
I have gone and got some boxes of LFDs. Thankfully they seem to be readily available again but I think the only responsible thing to do is to work from home this week rather than going to Edinburgh. We are going to lose the cost of his flight too.
I imagined it was a myth, apparently not
https://earthsky.org/earth/can-i-see-a-green-flash/#:~:text=The green flash is an,will appear green in color.
I know you're not very funny but just.... try? PM if you need help or ideas. Honest offer
My wife has now just got it, 6 days on from my positive test. Means our COVID free son is going to have to miss school as we are both self isolating and no one who can do the school run for us.
We've gone through boxes and boxes of LFT tests, we are using 3 tests a day at the moment - in line with the government rules. Fortunately they seem to be delivered the next day when you put in an online order.
About Liverpool signing Luis Diaz ahead of Tottenham Hotspur.
Come Thursday, when Levy finally learned just how far down the road Liverpool’s recruitment team had progressed with Diaz, there was precious little he could do about it.
Well-placed sources say that Levy threatened to report Liverpool’s recruitment staff to Fenway owners John W Henry and Mike Gordon. The key flaw in that plan being that Henry and Gordon were delighted with the strategy pursued.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/01/30/liverpool-backdoored-tottenham-win-battle-luis-diaz-outflanked/
It has been done many many times and I have yet to hear of any country begging to be a colony again so cannot be that bad. Or maybe that is just my dementia speaking.
Take the same approach for trade. Remain part of the UK single market until ready to join the European one. Put in place suitable transition arrangements.
As a Londoner I would regret Scotland leaving, but it is their free choice to do so. If they want to win, appeals for Unionism should be aimed at our shared values and culture, not the technical hurdles a newly independent country would face. But I suspect it's a losing battle.
These are two different issues. The parliament at Westminster governs for the benefit of the whole UK, including Scotland (and indy Scotland would affect everyone in the UK, economically and politically, so that is only right). This is why Sindy referendums are reserved to Westminster to grant, or not
Once in a generation is a pretty good rule of thumb, no country could withstand the instability of more frequent secession-attempts than that. And Scotland - let it be noted - does have the right of secession, unlike Catalonia, or US states, or Corsica, or Brittany, or many other places in the world where smaller bits of nations might fancy a breakaway
I am sure there will be an indyref2, just as there was a 2nd Quebec ref. 15-20 years after the first - a generation - seems right. Early 2030s?
That is the main thing that distinguishes a Union from a colony
Berlin and Frankfurt imposed far harsher austerity on the Greeks post GFC than London ever did on the Scots
It's perhaps a bit unfair, but only a bit, but I feel that GPs aren't much more than very expensive receptionists for the NHS.
If we think of which bits of the NHS are struggling most it is primary care, public health and dealing with chronic conditions - all things that ought to be within the remit of GPs.
They're an expensive waste of time.
But I can't think of any examples of a reasonably harmonious split that was later reversed when on reflection people came to think it was a pity. Which makes the "Rejoin" dream for the UK and EU very distant. I can see a customs union returning, since the ability to set different customs terms and teriffs was never really the driving force for Brexit, and few people think it's working out very well. But the idea of being politically separate will be with us for a long time.
Once away from basket case England and not tied to paying for their borrowing etc , things will steady very quickly. They will not be spaffing away borrowed cash on pretendy armies, Tory Hooray's bank accounts or London infrastructure.
Scotland has North Sea oil but that will run out
Westminster needs to stand firm and say No. Once a generation, at most. But let it be a free vote, unwhipped. If the Scots can persuade a majority of the UK's MPs (including Scotland's MPs) that they have a moral right to another referendum, so be it
I take your point that this risks endangering the union further. But so does yielding on the principle that Westminster decides when referendums happen, not Holyrood. There are risks either way
And I do believe there SHOULD be a 2nd indyref, at some point. But a new generation needs to arise, in Scotland, to make a new decision