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.
Hopefully he just gets mild version David.
Well he should. He is 18, he is fully vaccinated including the booster, he's pretty fit, lean and generally keeps good health. His bloods are at 99%. But he is still going to miss 1.5 weeks of University out of an 8 week term and his course is really full on and based around tutorials. It's a damn nuisance.
Just looked at Next PM odds. Tommy Tuge is down at same odds as Starmer with some bookies. E.g. Hills and Lads have them both at 8/1. Tugendhat has never been a minister before. Seems far too short to me.
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.
Yep. And in reality we were increasingly separate before we left. Wanted no part of the single currency. Of open borders. Of closer union. Of a single army structure. We were heading to the outer ring of the twin track Europe long before the referendum.
Fun bit of alternate history. Blair overrules Brown and the UK is a founder member of the Eurozone. Would have been a very different 20 years we've just had...
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?
Fairlie, there are buckets of drivel in there you missed but if you value your sanity do not go searching, short version is every petilence and disaster know will descend on Scotland if we go independent but we will not be allowed to vote for independence ever in any event.
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.
My son tells me something like 40 of his college are currently down with it. Anecdotes and all that but I have been aware of so many more cases in the last week than earlier in the month. It seems to be everywhere at the moment.
Edit, AIUI you do not have to self isolate provided that you have been fully vaccinated and you have a clear LFD every day before you leave the house. So you should be able to take your son to school, provided he is clear too.
No Indyref 2 before 2025 looks like a safe bet, to me. No chance the Tories agree to one anytime soon, and if Labour do win the next election I can't see them agreeing one till after the next Holyrood election in 2026 at the earliest.
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.
In what way was it narrowly? The highest every turnout for a Scottish parliamentary election. The highest ever vote for the governing nationalist party on a 2nd referendum platform. The highest ever number of MSPs elected on a 2nd referendum platform.
I'm on the same side of the independence fence as you are. But there IS a very clear electoral mandate for one. People should get what they vote for.
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
Yes , democracy in action given England has 86% of the MP's. What utter bollox. People will not accept being a colony in the long term.
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.
My son tells me something like 40 of his college are currently down with it. Anecdotes and all that but I have been aware of so many more cases in the last week than earlier in the month. It seems to be everywhere at the moment.
The final transition to endemicity. It looks like the whole apparatus of mass testing and the requirement to self-isolate is going to be binned here in about eight weeks' time (the rest of the UK may take a different view, of course,) but it's going to continue to cause havoc in the meantime.
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
Yes , democracy in action given England has 86% of the MP's. What utter bollox. People will not accept being a colony in the long term.
Scotland is not a colony.
For that Westminster would have to expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster, scrap Holyrood and let the UK government impose direct rule
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?
I would take strong issue with characterising Nigel as Right Wing or Racist. Indeed based on his regular comments on here I would suggest that Malcolm is both more rightwing and racist in his views than Nigel.
Edit - and for clarity I do not consider Malcolm to be either very right wing nor very racist.
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.
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.
I do recall that the internal trade in the counties collapsed with each new country doing something like 70% less trade with the other than they did before. That was in the early days and it may have recovered a bit now but an economic shock which would hit Scotland asymetrically hard (given rUK is 10x the size in population) is almost inevitable in the short run.
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.
Yep. And in reality we were increasingly separate before we left. Wanted no part of the single currency. Of open borders. Of closer union. Of a single army structure. We were heading to the outer ring of the twin track Europe long before the referendum.
Fun bit of alternate history. Blair overrules Brown and the UK is a founder member of the Eurozone. Would have been a very different 20 years we've just had...
And we would effectively have become a region of a Federal EU
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
Yes , democracy in action given England has 86% of the MP's. What utter bollox. People will not accept being a colony in the long term.
Scotland is not a colony.
For that Westminster would have to expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster, scrap Holyrood and let the UK government impose direct rule
A few Toom Tabards do not make democracy you idiot.
Just looked at Next PM odds. Tommy Tuge is down at same odds as Starmer with some bookies. E.g. Hills and Lads have them both at 8/1. Tugendhat has never been a minister before. Seems far too short to me.
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
Exactly.
Though even if Westminster did grant an indyref2 and Yes won that does not make Scotland independent. Westminster would have to vote to end the Act of Union too.
As proved with Brexit, Leave winning the EU referendum alone did not mean the UK left the EU. Only when Westminster voted for the Withdrawal Agreement in January 2020 after the Tory general election win did the UK leave the EU. The Westminster parliament of 2017 to 2019 voted against Brexit and against the Withdrawal Agreement even though Leave had won the 2016 referendum
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.
There is absolutely no reason what so ever why a split should be acrimonious beyond the desire by some English politicians for Scotland to be punished in the same way some in the Eu have advocated. Indeed though I think it deeply stupid, there is almost an internal logic to the EU wanting to punish Britain 'pour encourager les autres'. England wouldn't even have that excuse so it would be a matter of pure spite.
In the end it is in England's own interests that there is a successful Scotland north of any new border. An acrimonious split makes that more difficult and would be a case of self harm on both sides.
Oh and as I repeat always when this comes up, we can't be in the EU Customs Union as it requires full EU membership and any other form of customs union opens us up to crippling one way trade with any country the EU has a trade deal with.
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.
Financial markets will finance short term deficits so long as there is stability and a pathway to growth and reducing any deficit.
And Scotland could easily achieve 1% GDP from military spending cuts alone. No reason for a small country to spend so much there.
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.
Financial markets will finance short term deficits so long as there is stability and a pathway to growth and reducing any deficit.
And Scotland could easily achieve 1% GDP from military spending cuts alone. No reason for a small country to spend so much there.
Only if Scotland is in NATO, if not NATO would not defend Scotland from Putin.
Even in NATO Scotland would also be expected to pull its weight
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.
Financial markets will finance short term deficits so long as there is stability and a pathway to growth and reducing any deficit.
And Scotland could easily achieve 1% GDP from military spending cuts alone. No reason for a small country to spend so much there.
For any purported "saving" like that there are additional costs. At the moment we do not have a Treasury, a Central Bank, an independent financial regulator, a Foreign Office worthy of the name, etc etc. We could eventually do all of these things but the economic costs would be considerable. No financial institution worthy of the name is going to want to be regulated by unproven Scottish authorities rather than the FCA and the BoE, for example. Which will further diminish the tax base.
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?
Scotland is welcome to a thriving post-independence financial services industry just like those countries, as long as it does at least one of a) not join the EU, b) turn itself itself into a tax haven, and c) move itself ten thousand miles eastwards.
Since none of those are remotely likely, in practice most of Scotland's financial services sector (which derives a huge chunk of its profits from the rest of the UK anyway) will either collapse, or move southwards across the border soon after independence.
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.
Financial markets will finance short term deficits so long as there is stability and a pathway to growth and reducing any deficit.
And Scotland could easily achieve 1% GDP from military spending cuts alone. No reason for a small country to spend so much there.
For any purported "saving" like that there are additional costs. At the moment we do not have a Treasury, a Central Bank, an independent financial regulator, a Foreign Office worthy of the name, etc etc. We could eventually do all of these things but the economic costs would be considerable. No financial institution worthy of the name is going to want to be regulated by unproven Scottish authorities rather than the FCA and the BoE, for example. Which will further diminish the tax base.
Toom Tabards everywhere, is it any wonder Scotland cannot prospser while chained to all these doommongers and naysayers. Plenty of "I am all right Jack , No Change please". Soon there will be enough people with a backbone to push it through and they will not only be interested in the impact on their own wallets.
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.
Financial markets will finance short term deficits so long as there is stability and a pathway to growth and reducing any deficit.
And Scotland could easily achieve 1% GDP from military spending cuts alone. No reason for a small country to spend so much there.
For any purported "saving" like that there are additional costs. At the moment we do not have a Treasury, a Central Bank, an independent financial regulator, a Foreign Office worthy of the name, etc etc. We could eventually do all of these things but the economic costs would be considerable. No financial institution worthy of the name is going to want to be regulated by unproven Scottish authorities rather than the FCA and the BoE, for example. Which will further diminish the tax base.
Don't worry, an independent Scotland will hold all the cards, RUK needs Scotland more than Scotland needs them.
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.
I suspect she will make sure she has her successor in place before she goes. It will probably be her successor’s successor that will be the one to restart the campaign for independence. Hope I live that long.
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.
Financial markets will finance short term deficits so long as there is stability and a pathway to growth and reducing any deficit.
And Scotland could easily achieve 1% GDP from military spending cuts alone. No reason for a small country to spend so much there.
For any purported "saving" like that there are additional costs. At the moment we do not have a Treasury, a Central Bank, an independent financial regulator, a Foreign Office worthy of the name, etc etc. We could eventually do all of these things but the economic costs would be considerable. No financial institution worthy of the name is going to want to be regulated by unproven Scottish authorities rather than the FCA and the BoE, for example. Which will further diminish the tax base.
Toom Tabards everywhere, is it any wonder Scotland cannot prospser while chained to all these doommongers and naysayers. Plenty of "I am all right Jack , No Change please". Soon there will be enough people with a backbone to push it through and they will not only be interested in the impact on their own wallets.
Comments
Starmer good value IMO.
Fun bit of alternate history. Blair overrules Brown and the UK is a founder member of the Eurozone. Would have been a very different 20 years we've just had...
Edit, AIUI you do not have to self isolate provided that you have been fully vaccinated and you have a clear LFD every day before you leave the house. So you should be able to take your son to school, provided he is clear too.
I'm on the same side of the independence fence as you are. But there IS a very clear electoral mandate for one. People should get what they vote for.
For that Westminster would have to expel all Scottish MPs from Westminster, scrap Holyrood and let the UK government impose direct rule
Edit - and for clarity I do not consider Malcolm to be either very right wing nor very racist.
Though even if Westminster did grant an indyref2 and Yes won that does not make Scotland independent. Westminster would have to vote to end the Act of Union too.
As proved with Brexit, Leave winning the EU referendum alone did not mean the UK left the EU. Only when Westminster voted for the Withdrawal Agreement in January 2020 after the Tory general election win did the UK leave the EU. The Westminster parliament of 2017 to 2019 voted against Brexit and against the Withdrawal Agreement even though Leave had won the 2016 referendum
In the end it is in England's own interests that there is a successful Scotland north of any new border. An acrimonious split makes that more difficult and would be a case of self harm on both sides.
Oh and as I repeat always when this comes up, we can't be in the EU Customs Union as it requires full EU membership and any other form of customs union opens us up to crippling one way trade with any country the EU has a trade deal with.
And Scotland could easily achieve 1% GDP from military spending cuts alone. No reason for a small country to spend so much there.
Even in NATO Scotland would also be expected to pull its weight
Since none of those are remotely likely, in practice most of Scotland's financial services sector (which derives a huge chunk of its profits from the rest of the UK anyway) will either collapse, or move southwards across the border soon after independence.
Plenty of "I am all right Jack , No Change please".
Soon there will be enough people with a backbone to push it through and they will not only be interested in the impact on their own wallets.
You just need to believe in your country.
There will come a point when the big 3 lose their grip of Slams, but not, I think, today. .
And M breaks back LOL
NEW THREAD