Has to be said. Ian Blackford has bollocks. Had no idea what had happened today until an hour ago. Had non politicos ask "why was Ian Blackford thrown out for telling the truth?"
Good question
NB that he offered to reword to say that Mr J was inadvertently not telling the truth. Which would fulfil Westminster regulations, but ...
Has to be said. Ian Blackford has bollocks. Had no idea what had happened today until an hour ago. Had non politicos ask "why was Ian Blackford thrown out for telling the truth?"
Good question
The rules are, of course, there to stop every Parliamentary debate from devolving into a personal slanging match in which everyone accuses everyone else of lying.
That said, Blackford has done himself no harm whatsoever in this case by stating the bleeding obvious about a man who also just happens to be about as popular as a dogshit sandwich back home.
Has to be said. Ian Blackford has bollocks. Had no idea what had happened today until an hour ago. Had non politicos ask "why was Ian Blackford thrown out for telling the truth?"
Good question
The rules are, of course, there to stop every Parliamentary debate from devolving into a personal slanging match in which everyone accuses everyone else of lying.
That said, Blackford has done himself no harm whatsoever in this case by stating the bleeding obvious about a man who also just happens to be about as popular as a dogshit sandwich back home.
Exactly. I support both Blackford calling the lying twunt what he is, and the Speaker throwing him out for doing so.
Has to be said. Ian Blackford has bollocks. Had no idea what had happened today until an hour ago. Had non politicos ask "why was Ian Blackford thrown out for telling the truth?"
Good question
The rules are, of course, there to stop every Parliamentary debate from devolving into a personal slanging match in which everyone accuses everyone else of lying.
I've watched enough HoC to know that those rules aren't working particularly well then.
Went to the local pub at 7 tonight. Monday evening. Quiet. There is a corner where a group of peeps meet whatever day of week - mainly young lads. 3 or 4 middle aged. I think they are something to do with 5-a-side football or golf.
The entire hour I was there they banged on about Johnson and basically what a lying twat he is. All of them sharing one mobile phone picture, tweet, joke, meem after another. They can't decide whether to laugh at the lying fat twat or be upset that things have come to this.
Middle England.
Bet the Tories long after the days when their PM waffled on about the Middle England of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers, pools fillers and cones hotlines.
That part of Middle England is currently drowning in Focus leaflets promising action on potholes and pointing out that Sir Henry Bufton-Tufton MP has done nothing to stop Thames Water filling the River Lovelybourne with sewage.
Roberto Carlos won by Bull in the Barn FC in a competition. Will play in the Shrewsbury League.
He isn't looking in very good nick these days.
Tbf. I doubt he'll need to be.
I was never much of a footballer, but during my gap year I played for the company team. We had a few lads who played decent level Saturday football, but my boss was a former EPL academy player. He was offered pro but told not likely good enough for the big time, more like League One. He decided he didn't fancy it and was a intelligent guy and went off to uni and still at age of nearly 40 played league below conference and was in good nick.
He would literally stand they and ping the ball right on to your foot from 30-40 yard, and read the game so well he hardly had to do much running. The quality he had was a totally different level to the youngsters in their 20s who played local league.
Yes. There was a very popular Charity RL tournament in Wigan up till the late Eighties, the Ken Gee Cup. Anyone could get a side together and enter with 2 pros allowed for each side. Quite astonishing to see the difference close up. Even from the long retired. Or callow. A young Andy Gregory played one year and agreed not to break into a run ISTR. Was still head and shoulders the best on the field. Not a hand laid on him all game.
I don't understand this obsession with "timing". He's either fit to lead or not. That won't change in May.
Tory MPs (or the large majority of them anyway) are just a bunch of limp dicks.
This is actually worse than Labour's vacillations over Corbyn. Johnson wields real power, and he can be stripped of it by a simple majority vote without the MPs having to resort to a mass walkout and setting up a splinter party to get out from under his leadership. It's not even as if he can appeal to demented elderly party members to try to bail him out if the MPs defenestrate him: whatever happens with the subsequent leadership ballot, Johnson wouldn't be available on it as a choice. It's very pathetic.
Roberto Carlos won by Bull in the Barn FC in a competition. Will play in the Shrewsbury League.
He isn't looking in very good nick these days.
Tbf. I doubt he'll need to be.
I was never much of a footballer, but during my gap year I played for the company team. We had a few lads who played decent level Saturday football, but my boss was a former EPL academy player. He was offered pro but told not likely good enough for the big time, more like League One. He decided he didn't fancy it and was a intelligent guy and went off to uni and still at age of nearly 40 played league below conference and was in good nick.
He would literally stand they and ping the ball right on to your foot from 30-40 yard, and read the game so well he hardly had to do much running. The quality he had was a totally different level to the youngsters in their 20s who played local league.
Yes. There was a very popular Charity RL tournament in Wigan up till the late Eighties, the Ken Gee Cup. Anyone could get a side together and enter with 2 pros allowed for each side. Quite astonishing to see the difference close up. Even from the long retired. Or callow. A young Andy Gregory played one year and agreed not to break into a run ISTR. Was still head and shoulders the best on the field.
On the flip, some become so crocked with injuries and let themselves, you wonder how they were ever pros.
The manager of the kids team I played on was a former international, but you honestly wouldn't believe it. He wasn't out of shape, but certainly wasn't "in" shape, and hobbled around as he was totally crocked, even though only in late 40s.
To see real quality, I have been to a few pro clubs training sessions. Then you see the no pressure what some of the real best can do. The biggest one that struck me was mere mortals aren't beating an EPL keeper from mid/long range, and even pros unless it is an absolute rocket that swerves massively if they have a clear sight. They just always be there.
I don't understand this obsession with "timing". He's either fit to lead or not. That won't change in May.
It's an excuse to leave him in place, without having to face the realisation that they aren't willing to give him the heave-ho. Oh no, it's certainly not that they tolerate his behaviour, it's just that they have to choose the right time.
I'm perfectly aware that I exercise this sort of self-delusion all the time, but today it was with regard to my consumption of digestive biscuits, and not whether the Prime Minister was suitable to lead the country.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
I don't understand this obsession with "timing". He's either fit to lead or not. That won't change in May.
It's an excuse to leave him in place, without having to face the realisation that they aren't willing to give him the heave-ho. Oh no, it's certainly not that they tolerate his behaviour, it's just that they have to choose the right time.
I'm perfectly aware that I exercise this sort of self-delusion all the time, but today it was with regard to my consumption of digestive biscuits, and not whether the Prime Minister was suitable to lead the country.
Yep. I drink too much and ought to do summat about it. Maybe after the May locals.
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
The optimism among @BorisJohnson allies over w/end clearly premature. Many Tory MPs think today he's effectively “re-lit the fuse” that will blow up his premiership. Will be lots of meetings over next few days. Big debate on timing - very unclear which way PMs critics will break
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Is BoZo going to fly to Ukraine tomorrow and end up infecting them?
The last diplomatic mission Johnson went on got Nazarin Zaghari -Ratliffe an extra five years in an Iranian jail. The Ukrainians might do better if he settles for dressing up as a tank commander at Chequers
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Did you actually read @Beibheirli_C’s post? Or the posts preceding it?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
Good post. The important thing is that people are on a continuum, and some of those people are very close to dropping one way or another. If there was a debate between Boris and Nicola on the eve of a referendum, and one of them audibly farted, I think that would be enough to change a few dozen votes in one way of the other. Not the ultras on either side, obviously. But there's enough of a middle ground that even the most trivial thing can nudge you towards or away from the line. And the recent scandals are not trivial.
That's not to say that the PM partying is really a core issue that ought to be central to a campaign of such importance. But when people weigh heavy arguments on both sides and find themselves still near the middle, the balance can be wafted by something as an unfortunately timed guff. And the lying and drinking and rule-breaking is surely something weightier than that.
I have to know: would they be moving to support the farter, or the fartee?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
Yet, if Scotland does become independent, it will be largely due to two leaders whose ethical and moral behaviours can easily be described as questionable (but for different reasons), namely Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
People know that leaders come and go in a democracy.
If Scotland becomes independent it would be under a UK PM who allows an indyref2 ie not Boris, which they then lose.
It was New Labour who also created Holyrood to allow Salmond and Sturgeon a platform to propagate their Scottish Nationalism
I'm fairly sure Holyrood existed before the Scottish Parliament.
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
Considering that he always seems to wear one, he never really looks comfortable in a suit. In part I think it a degree of imposter syndrome
He should at least wear some in softer colours, but could really do with some smart casual styling.
It's great to be able to be formal for a setpiece, but being less formal at times would emphasise the seriousness when he does.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Did you actually read @Beibheirli_C’s post? Or the posts preceding it?
I read them all.
She's still banging on about Brexit when Indyref1 was only 2 years earlier.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Did you actually read @Beibheirli_C’s post? Or the posts preceding it?
I read them all.
She's still banging on about Brexit when the Indyref1 was only 2 years earlier.
Ok so you read them but did not comprehend them. Good to know.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Tis true, but that was when it was understood that to be British meant also being part of the EU.
Seems to me reasonable enough to ask the question again now that this not inconsequential consideration has changed.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Did you actually read @Beibheirli_C’s post? Or the posts preceding it?
Based on this and earlier postings tonight, I am not convinced that he can actually read.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
That was pre Brexit. If I was a Scot I'd vote for independence in a heartbeat if it meant rejoining the EU. I wouldn't have at the last Indy Ref
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Tis true, but that was when it was understood that to be British meant also being part of the EU.
Seems to me reasonable enough to ask the question again now that this not inconsequential consideration has changed.
I don't understand this obsession with "timing". He's either fit to lead or not. That won't change in May.
It's just a power thing. If MPs admit they won't bring him down they are powerless. If they pretend they are keeping him under review it gives them power (even if that power is ultimately self delusional as they are too frit to stand up to the Eton set).
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
Considering that he always seems to wear one, he never really looks comfortable in a suit. In part I think it a degree of imposter syndrome
He should at least wear some in softer colours, but could really do with some smart casual styling.
It's great to be able to be formal for a setpiece, but being less formal at times would emphasise the seriousness when he does.
It's not his suits per se, it's the fact he's overweight. I suspect he still wears the same suits he bought years ago and convinces himself he will go on a diet to get himself back into them.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
Did you actually read @Beibheirli_C’s post? Or the posts preceding it?
I read them all.
She's still banging on about Brexit when the Indyref1 was only 2 years earlier.
Ok so you read them but did not comprehend them. Good to know.
I comprehended them just fine. You do realise that some Scots have actually been living in Nippy/Eck's Scotland since 2014?
EDIT: For the record I think Unpopular's posts on this thread were very well explained.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
That was pre Brexit. If I was a Scot I'd vote for independence in a heartbeat if it meant rejoining the EU. I wouldn't have at the last Indy Ref
In which case you would not really be voting for full independence anyway as you would have been in 2014 when a Yes vote meant Scotland leaving a UK in the EU, just swapping rule from Westminster for rule by Brussels and Frankfurt. Especially if Scotland then joined the Euro
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 49m Won’t be a happy front page for No 10. A week ago Mail was calling for “proportion.” Now urging government to “publish the whole damn thing.” Quote Tweet Daily Mail U.K. @DailyMailUK
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
He is not inspiring in any shape, form or fashion. John Major was accused of being "grey" and Starmer has the same problem.
At least he is not invisible, unlike whoever is running the LibDems these days
If Conservative MPs are somehow waiting for the Met to declare illegality as their starting gate to move against Johnson they are a bit weak on this.
Whilst some of the melodramatic moral outrage makes me want to throw up, the overall feel I get is that previously supporting sections of the public are tiring of the PM and I doubt he can win enough of them back. And that's the thing, I don't think recent events will increase public animus towards him. Those who hate him will continue to do so. Those who don't still won't after this, but this latter group will get fed up and that's all it will take.
Post-May elections may look like a better point to move if that weariness with Johnson translates into real poll figures, but the reaction of the backbenchers I would have assumed to have been stronger at this point than it has been.
It is hard to imagine that the Met and the final Gray report won’t be damning. What are Conservative MPs waiting for? They are fools if they think every day they let this drag on isn’t harming their own re-election chances.
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
He is not inspiring in any shape, form or fashion. John Major was accused of being "grey" and Starmer has the same problem.
At least he is not invisible, unlike whoever is running the LibDems these days
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
That was pre Brexit. If I was a Scot I'd vote for independence in a heartbeat if it meant rejoining the EU. I wouldn't have at the last Indy Ref
In which case you would not really be voting for full independence anyway as you would have been in 2014, just swapping rule from Westminster for rule by Brussels and Frankfurt. Especially if Scotland then joined the Euro
No, that's reducing the argument to an absurdly trivial level, Hyufd.
All alliances involve yielding a degree of sovereignity. We all have to judge the extent and the ways in which we are prepared to give up something in return for other benefits. Mostly the pros and cons are fairly modest but in the case of EU membership they are so far reaching that it would be hard to deny the Scots a second referendum in the light of the UK's rather unexpected departure from the EU.
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
Considering that he always seems to wear one, he never really looks comfortable in a suit. In part I think it a degree of imposter syndrome
He should at least wear some in softer colours, but could really do with some smart casual styling.
It's great to be able to be formal for a setpiece, but being less formal at times would emphasise the seriousness when he does.
You don't tend to notice his poor dress sense outside of Parliament. Even Corbyn managed to look quite reasonable after he got someone to dress him and he changed his man -of -the -people muddy grey for blue. He looks barrel chested but that's easily sorted out with wardrobe
Has to be said. Ian Blackford has bollocks. Had no idea what had happened today until an hour ago. Had non politicos ask "why was Ian Blackford thrown out for telling the truth?"
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
Err, the Scots had a ref not that long ago. We voted to be British.
That was pre Brexit. If I was a Scot I'd vote for independence in a heartbeat if it meant rejoining the EU. I wouldn't have at the last Indy Ref
In which case you would not really be voting for full independence anyway as you would have been in 2014, just swapping rule from Westminster for rule by Brussels and Frankfurt. Especially if Scotland then joined the Euro
No, that's reducing the argument to an absurdly trivial level, Hyufd.
All alliances involve yielding a degree of sovereignity. We all have to judge the extent and the ways in which we are prepared to give up something in return for other benefits. Mostly the pros and cons are fairly modest but in the case of EU membership they are so far reaching that it would be hard to deny the Scots a second referendum in the light of the UK's rather unexpected departure from the EU.
The post Brexit NI border debate will look like child's play compared to what's going to happen if the Nationalists get their way.
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
He is not inspiring in any shape, form or fashion. John Major was accused of being "grey" and Starmer has the same problem.
At least he is not invisible, unlike whoever is running the LibDems these days
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
He is not inspiring in any shape, form or fashion. John Major was accused of being "grey" and Starmer has the same problem.
At least he is not invisible, unlike whoever is running the LibDems these days
Question, who is the Lib Dem leader?
Sir Ed Davey.
Not gonna lie, I couldn't recall that fact off the top of my head at all.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Has to be said. Ian Blackford has bollocks. Had no idea what had happened today until an hour ago. Had non politicos ask "why was Ian Blackford thrown out for telling the truth?"
Good question
So much for free speech
Waiting for Leon to complain about him being cancelled.....
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
If the snap opinium polls are right, whatever HY says is irrelevant
They aren't as most Tory voters in those Opinium polls still want Boris to stay
I just do not understand why you are not embarrassed and ashamed today, and maybe a little bit of humility would be welcome
I cannot think of anything I could say to excuse or support Boris in office one day longer
I hope his mps reflect in the next few days and do the right thing and vonc him to start a heeling process for those of us who really want a competent conservative government
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
He is not inspiring in any shape, form or fashion. John Major was accused of being "grey" and Starmer has the same problem.
At least he is not invisible, unlike whoever is running the LibDems these days
Question, who is the Lib Dem leader?
Sir Ed Davey.
Not gonna lie, I couldn't recall that fact off the top of my head at all.
Yet you constantly come in here asking the same question.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
That is utter rubbish.
Scotland voted 62% Remain. If Brexit meant the end of the Union Yes would be on over 60% in every poll now.
Instead Yes is only on 50% at most, little different to the 45% it got in 2014 before Brexit
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
Brexit was a sideshow.
The only major political event of the next 4 years is the Section 30 request (hyperbole? - I live in Scotland)
And literally the only thing the sitting (maybe Bozo) PM has to do is write a letter.
Unlike you remoaners I want to remain British as long as possible.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
In real terms its irrelevant, because the FM and DFM are in effect equal posts but the symbolism is notable. The Shinners will claim that a United Ireland is 5 years away (again), I do suspect Unionists who have been grumpy with the DUP for some time, will get a grip on themselves in time as there are signs of competition returning to the Unionist camp which is critical for turnout.
The reality is there is still nowhere near enough votes for a United Ireland. Even in the midst of Brexit and the shite over goods transit, there still isn't the numbers, not anywhere near it. The Union is still pretty comfortable all round for far too many and assuming a lot of absurdities of the Brexit agreement are levelled out, which I think is likely, then the anger over it within some sections of unionism will fade.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
Brexit was a sideshow.
The only major political event of the next 4 years is the Section 30 request (hyperbole? - I live in Scotland)
And literally the only thing the sitting (maybe Bozo) has to do is write a letter.
Unlike you remoaners I want to remain British as long as possible.
No Brexit shows the chasm between the diverging political worlds of England and Scotland. I think those now unbridgeable by a Conservative party that insults its own Scottish branch.
Incidentally polling in Wales looks equally dire. After the next GE the Conservatives may not have a seat outside England.
Starmer's igetting better but he needs to improve his dress sense. I'm surprised he hasn't done it already. Good stylists in London are ten a penny. A couple of decent made to measure suits and shirts that he doesn't look like he's popping out of. It'll make a HUGE difference
He is not inspiring in any shape, form or fashion. John Major was accused of being "grey" and Starmer has the same problem.
At least he is not invisible, unlike whoever is running the LibDems these days
Question, who is the Lib Dem leader?
Sir Ed Davey.
Not gonna lie, I couldn't recall that fact off the top of my head at all.
Yet you constantly come in here asking the same question.
Its instantly forgettable a bit like, what's his name again? Nick Clegg?
If the snap opinium polls are right, whatever HY says is irrelevant
They aren't as most Tory voters in those Opinium polls still want Boris to stay
This is a bit like Labour in 2018 - the population have swung strongly against the leadership, the members and just over half half the MPs remain loyal, the other MPs scratch their heads, wondering what to do. Revolt? Defect? Retire?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
In real terms its irrelevant, because the FM and DFM are in effect equal posts but the symbolism is notable. The Shinners will claim that a United Ireland is 5 years away (again), I do suspect Unionists who have been grumpy with the DUP for some time, will get a grip on themselves in time as there are signs of competition returning to the Unionist camp which is critical for turnout.
The reality is there is still nowhere near enough votes for a United Ireland. Even in the midst of Brexit and the shite over goods transit, there still isn't the numbers, not anywhere near it. The Union is still pretty comfortable all round for far too many and assuming a lot of absurdities of the Brexit agreement are levelled out, which I think is likely then the anger over it within some sections of unionism will fade.
I think we have been at the point though since 2017 where an SF First Minister would be considerably better for centrist NI unionists tgan the DUP or even UUP even if they are unlikely to vote for reunification in a hypothetical border poll.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
Brexit was a sideshow.
The only major political event of the next 4 years is the Section 30 request (hyperbole? - I live in Scotland)
And literally the only thing the sitting (maybe Bozo) has to do is write a letter.
Unlike you remoaners I want to remain British as long as possible.
No Brexit shows the chasm between the diverging political worlds of England and Scotland. I think those now unbridgeable by a Conservative party that insults its own Scottish branch.
Incidentally polling in Wales looks equally dire. After the next GE the Conservatives may not have a seat outside England.
Yet more rubbish.
The Tories won more seats in Scotland and in Wales after the Brexit vote in 2019 than they did before the Brexit vote in 2015.
Boris is the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever, indeed even now the Tory voteshare has declined less in Wales since 2019 than the UK average
If the snap opinium polls are right, whatever HY says is irrelevant
They aren't as most Tory voters in those Opinium polls still want Boris to stay
This is a bit like Labour in 2018 - the population have swung strongly against the leadership, the members and just over half half the MPs remain loyal, the other MPs scratch their heads, wondering what to do. Revolt? Defect? Retire?
Ah...wait a while and see if anything changes.
Yes and of course Corbyn stayed Labour leader until the 2019 general election as even if voters as a whole disliked him, most Labour members and Labour voters still liked him.
For Boris, like Corbyn, the key to holding on until the general election is keeping the support of most of the party
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
Brexit was a sideshow.
The only major political event of the next 4 years is the Section 30 request (hyperbole? - I live in Scotland)
And literally the only thing the sitting (maybe Bozo) has to do is write a letter.
Unlike you remoaners I want to remain British as long as possible.
No Brexit shows the chasm between the diverging political worlds of England and Scotland. I think those now unbridgeable by a Conservative party that insults its own Scottish branch.
Incidentally polling in Wales looks equally dire. After the next GE the Conservatives may not have a seat outside England.
Yet more rubbish.
The Tories won more seats in Scotland and in Wales after the Brexit vote in 2019 than they did before the Brexit vote in 2015.
Boris is the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever, indeed even now the Tory voteshare has declined less in Wales since 2019 than the UK average
Is your argument really “the Welsh think he’s marginally less shit than the English and the Scots”?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
Brexit was a sideshow.
The only major political event of the next 4 years is the Section 30 request (hyperbole? - I live in Scotland)
And literally the only thing the sitting (maybe Bozo) has to do is write a letter.
Unlike you remoaners I want to remain British as long as possible.
No Brexit shows the chasm between the diverging political worlds of England and Scotland. I think those now unbridgeable by a Conservative party that insults its own Scottish branch.
Incidentally polling in Wales looks equally dire. After the next GE the Conservatives may not have a seat outside England.
Scotland "more European" than England eh? More civic? More civic and joyous?
Scotland is a mess because of an SNP+Green Administration and the fact that we've been divided since 2014.
I almost want an indyref2 ASAP to get the drama over with.
But of course we won't get a Section 30 request any time soon because SNP Types have their own timetable for things (Like a Section 30 request in the middle of a pandemic)
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
Brexit was a sideshow.
The only major political event of the next 4 years is the Section 30 request (hyperbole? - I live in Scotland)
And literally the only thing the sitting (maybe Bozo) has to do is write a letter.
Unlike you remoaners I want to remain British as long as possible.
No Brexit shows the chasm between the diverging political worlds of England and Scotland. I think those now unbridgeable by a Conservative party that insults its own Scottish branch.
Incidentally polling in Wales looks equally dire. After the next GE the Conservatives may not have a seat outside England.
Yet more rubbish.
The Tories won more seats in Scotland and in Wales after the Brexit vote in 2019 than they did before the Brexit vote in 2015.
Boris is the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever, indeed even now the Tory voteshare has declined less in Wales since 2019 than the UK average
Talking about past victories may comfort you, but I think voters are going to pay more attention to 12 gatherings being investigated by the Met and a PM who can’t explain what he’s sorry for.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
In real terms its irrelevant, because the FM and DFM are in effect equal posts but the symbolism is notable. The Shinners will claim that a United Ireland is 5 years away (again), I do suspect Unionists who have been grumpy with the DUP for some time, will get a grip on themselves in time as there are signs of competition returning to the Unionist camp which is critical for turnout.
The reality is there is still nowhere near enough votes for a United Ireland. Even in the midst of Brexit and the shite over goods transit, there still isn't the numbers, not anywhere near it. The Union is still pretty comfortable all round for far too many and assuming a lot of absurdities of the Brexit agreement are levelled out, which I think is likely then the anger over it within some sections of unionism will fade.
I think we have been at the point though since 2017 where an SF First Minister would be considerably better for centrist NI unionists tgan the DUP or even UUP even if they are unlikely to vote for reunification in a hypothetical border poll.
In short , no. There is no circumstance where a SF First Minister benefits anyone who thinks themselves a unionist. SF cant fucking stand unionists, they wanted shot of us for decades and occasionally patted us on the head and claimed we were just misled by the Brits and really Irish people. They want to fuck us out the door and lord it. Its their entire DNA, meet some of them and find out, politically as zealous as you can get. They consider Unionists as here but essentially illegitimate. What fucking party puts an IRA bomber in charge of their supposed Unionist outreach programme?
The vast vast majority of Unionists know this, wherever on the Unionist spectrum they are. Buying the power sharing game isn't the same in any way whatsoever as buying that SF has any benefit to Unionists. I know a lot of garden centre Prods, the classic middle class Alliance voters who think they are above it. None of them would buy that idea of a SF First Minister being to their benefit. Not one.
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
If you want the Union to stay, is BJ having his drinks parties going to make you think "you know what, I'll vote for independence?". Especially given all the question marks over Nicola S's own behaviour and what was exposed in the Salmond case? Yes, people might vote for another party as the main Unionist party but their #1 motivation factor is the...Union, not BJ.
As poster Unpopular, a Unionist living in Scotland, put it on the previous thread:
- “He, and notables around him, seem to go out their way to prove everything the SNP say about Westminster.”
And is Unpopular going to now vote for independence off the back of BJ's behaviour?
No, I'm a diehard Unionist. I can't really think of a realistic scenario under which I wouldn't vote to retain the Union. But that view is probably not the majority of Scots. The parties (or work events) aren't going to drive a vote for independence themselves but the impression that this government is acting as though the rules don't apply to them feeds into a narrative of unfairness and distance, which can be exploited by others offering an alternative. They can point to them and say 'These people are not like you, these people don't care about you.' In Scotland, because of the political dividing lines, this narrative is uniquely problematic for the Union.
At the end of the day, if people don't feel included in the Union, if they feel that they are being taken for granted, or for fools, they won't stand it. Regardless of the economic benefits.
You’re a new poster, and I like your style.
Why are you still a Unionist? Is it sentiment, economics, both?
Why thank you, long time lurker, but thought I'd get stuck in a bit. Would post more, but it takes me ages to think and then write what I mean.
It's a bit of both, though I'm mainly a Unionist for sentiment, I guess. I'm not actually Scottish but Gisella Stewart's words on this really sums it up. She said she could never feel English, but she could be British (in a national sense). I think there's something to that, this shared identity (not universally felt, I know). I also think the Union is bigger than a single Government or political party. The United Kingdom is stronger and more influential in the world than it would be as its constituent parts. The economic benefits are, of course a part of it. I think we're richer together too and the economic opportunities the Union affords to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people are also greater than those that are afforded in the Nations.
I try to be clear eyed about the future of the Union, and a Scottish partner helps with that. I think Westminster generally, and the Conservative Party in particular, are very complacent about the continued existence of the United Kingdom. Even though I support it, I know that the Union cannot long endure without the consent of the people of the four nations.
Thank you for this. We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
You echo a number of my own sentiments. Like you, I can never be English (and I never wanted to be) but being British was just fine as the UK was seen as a sensible, fair and reliable country.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
My feelings too. Being British works for my mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots-Irish heritage, in part seasoned by the Antipodes and Empire. Being English doesn't fit so well.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
I am over the hurt. I still have my UK passport because it still has 3 or 4 years to run and I might renew it just to make travelling back to GB easier. I paid my taxes for nearly 40 years, I want my pension when it is due.
So all the non-Scots on this thread are upset about Brexit.
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
Yes, because Brexit means the end of the Union. It is just a matter of time now.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
In real terms its irrelevant, because the FM and DFM are in effect equal posts but the symbolism is notable. The Shinners will claim that a United Ireland is 5 years away (again), I do suspect Unionists who have been grumpy with the DUP for some time, will get a grip on themselves in time as there are signs of competition returning to the Unionist camp which is critical for turnout.
The reality is there is still nowhere near enough votes for a United Ireland. Even in the midst of Brexit and the shite over goods transit, there still isn't the numbers, not anywhere near it. The Union is still pretty comfortable all round for far too many and assuming a lot of absurdities of the Brexit agreement are levelled out, which I think is likely then the anger over it within some sections of unionism will fade.
I think we have been at the point though since 2017 where an SF First Minister would be considerably better for centrist NI unionists tgan the DUP or even UUP even if they are unlikely to vote for reunification in a hypothetical border poll.
In short , no. There is no circumstance where a SF First Minister benefits anyone who thinks themselves a unionist. SF cant fucking stand unionists, they wanted shot of us for decades and occasionally patted us on the head and claimed we were just misled by the Brits and really Irish people. They want to fuck us out the door and lord it. Its their entire DNA, meet some of them and find out, politically as zealous as you can get. They consider Unionists as here but essentially illegitimate. What fucking party puts an IRA bomber in charge of their supposed Unionist outreach programme?
The vast vast majority of Unionists know this, wherever on the Unionist spectrum they are. Buying the power sharing game isn't the same in any way whatsoever as buying that SF has any benefit to Unionists. I know a lot of garden centre Prods, the classic middle class Alliance voters who think they are above it. None of them would buy that idea of a SF First Minister being to their benefit. Not one.
Thanks Yokes.
Important to note that SF polling has not increased. In fact there’s been a slight trend to the centre (ie SDLP) over the past few years.
What’s happened is simply the collapse of the DUP.
Unlike you, I’m not confident of unionists getting their shit together however.
To see real quality, I have been to a few pro clubs training sessions. Then you see the no pressure what some of the real best can do. The biggest one that struck me was mere mortals aren't beating an EPL keeper from mid/long range, and even pros unless it is an absolute rocket that swerves massively if they have a clear sight. They just always be there.
I've been on a trackday with Stefan Bradl (now Honda's MotoGP test rider). He was on a stock CBR1000RR on street tyres and I was on my trackday special on slicks. I was risking a very fast crash in every corner to keep him in sight, locking both wheels, sliding, spinning up, etc. He was riding with one hand on the bars looking back at me over his shoulder while chilled af.
I've also been on the Porsche test track at Leipzig with Walter Rohrl and the gap in ability between him and the punters was very apparent but not Stefan Bradl level.
To see real quality, I have been to a few pro clubs training sessions. Then you see the no pressure what some of the real best can do. The biggest one that struck me was mere mortals aren't beating an EPL keeper from mid/long range, and even pros unless it is an absolute rocket that swerves massively if they have a clear sight. They just always be there.
I've been on a trackday with Stefan Bradl (now Honda's MotoGP test rider). He was on a stock CBR1000RR on street tyres and I was on my trackday special on slicks. I was risking a very fast crash in every corner to keep him in sight, locking both wheels, sliding, spinning up, etc. He was riding with one hand on the bars looking back at me over his shoulder while chilled af.
I've also been on the Porsche test track at Leipzig with Walter Rohrl and the gap in ability between him and the punters was very apparent but not Stefan Bradl level.
Were your slicks warmed up enough?
Regardless - I think PBers here are making a good point, professional sports people are good at their jobs.
Comments
Quite astonishing to see the difference close up. Even from the long retired. Or callow.
A young Andy Gregory played one year and agreed not to break into a run ISTR.
Was still head and shoulders the best on the field. Not a hand laid on him all game.
This is actually worse than Labour's vacillations over Corbyn. Johnson wields real power, and he can be stripped of it by a simple majority vote without the MPs having to resort to a mass walkout and setting up a splinter party to get out from under his leadership. It's not even as if he can appeal to demented elderly party members to try to bail him out if the MPs defenestrate him: whatever happens with the subsequent leadership ballot, Johnson wouldn't be available on it as a choice. It's very pathetic.
The manager of the kids team I played on was a former international, but you honestly wouldn't believe it. He wasn't out of shape, but certainly wasn't "in" shape, and hobbled around as he was totally crocked, even though only in late 40s.
To see real quality, I have been to a few pro clubs training sessions. Then you see the no pressure what some of the real best can do. The biggest one that struck me was mere mortals aren't beating an EPL keeper from mid/long range, and even pros unless it is an absolute rocket that swerves massively if they have a clear sight. They just always be there.
I'm perfectly aware that I exercise this sort of self-delusion all the time, but today it was with regard to my consumption of digestive biscuits, and not whether the Prime Minister was suitable to lead the country.
We don’t really see much (any!) of why some remain Unionist.
Your feelings are similar to mine.
I can never be English, but I like - or maybe liked - being British, which I construe(d) as multi-national, cosmopolitan, fair, tolerant, democratic, equable and wryly non-demonstrative.
British identity is (was?) capacious, and that suits me fine. It does not pre-suppose race and religion; you can be British wherever you are, but also Scottish, or Welsh, or even Polish, Bengali or New Zealand.
This, the classic British icon might be the bobby in the turban, not because we *must* be multicultural, but because we can be without discomfort.
I also saw the UK as broadly a force for good in the world, and the UK as a successful entity capable of delivering prosperity to its population.
Iraq, Brexit, and Boris have fractured much of this. Older posters might add Thatcher, but she was before my time…
Maybe after the May locals.
"previously loyal"
Fake News!
Just asking for reasons.
Brexit shredded all that, and even more, the vitriol that flowed from Brexit.
I am now convinced that the Scots and N.Irish need to go their own way
@HYUFD speaks for a fair bit of the membership and these are the people that the MPs talk with more consistently back in their constituencies.
If @HYUFD and his ilk are saying that, as Tories, they want to stick with BJ, that is going to influence the MPs' thinking.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1488235127847243780
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Official_portrait_of_Mr_Dominic_Grieve_crop_2.jpg/800px-Official_portrait_of_Mr_Dominic_Grieve_crop_2.jpg
He should at least wear some in softer colours, but could really do with some smart casual styling.
It's great to be able to be formal for a setpiece, but being less formal at times would emphasise the seriousness when he does.
She's still banging on about Brexit when Indyref1 was only 2 years earlier.
Seems to me reasonable enough to ask the question again now that this not inconsequential consideration has changed.
I will just add him to my "ignore" list
EDIT: For the record I think Unpopular's posts on this thread were very well explained.
Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
·
49m
Won’t be a happy front page for No 10. A week ago Mail was calling for “proportion.” Now urging government to “publish the whole damn thing.”
Quote Tweet
Daily Mail U.K.
@DailyMailUK
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488280584103534593
Interested because, if you are betting if / when BJ goes, this sort of stuff may influence the MPs.
Brexit though shredded that inclusivity, but maybe it was always a fiction. I don't really feel any national affiliation any more. Perhaps that is why May's "Citizen of Nowhere" hurts, because that is what she made me.
At least he is not invisible, unlike whoever is running the LibDems these days
Whilst some of the melodramatic moral outrage makes me want to throw up, the overall feel I get is that previously supporting sections of the public are tiring of the PM and I doubt he can win enough of them back. And that's the thing, I don't think recent events will increase public animus towards him. Those who hate him will continue to do so. Those who don't still won't after this, but this latter group will get fed up and that's all it will take.
Post-May elections may look like a better point to move if that weariness with Johnson translates into real poll figures, but the reaction of the backbenchers I would have assumed to have been stronger at this point than it has been.
Still, I think he will be gone this year.
All alliances involve yielding a degree of sovereignity. We all have to judge the extent and the ways in which we are prepared to give up something in return for other benefits. Mostly the pros and cons are fairly modest but in the case of EU membership they are so far reaching that it would be hard to deny the Scots a second referendum in the light of the UK's rather unexpected departure from the EU.
So it’s not 50% of potential Tory voters wanting Boris to stay it’s 50% of what’s left of Tory voters wanting Boris to stay.
Which equates to about 15% of all voters being happy with Boris..
Yet, it's Me that can't comprehend?
Y'all got tunnel vision.
But the timing of those fox pop interviews is critical as they won’t have been done today.
Goodnight!
I didn't get much sleep last night but I'm still wired.
I tried Talking Pictures but that didn't help.
Scottish Unionists are making the same mistake that Remain did. Concentrating on transactional issues and belittling opponents can only go so far. For the Union to survive it has to mean something, and to inspire.
I would be interested in @Yokes views on an SF first minister too. With power sharing there will be limits, but a critical psychological shift.
I cannot think of anything I could say to excuse or support Boris in office one day longer
I hope his mps reflect in the next few days and do the right thing and vonc him to start a heeling process for those of us who really want a competent conservative government
Scotland voted 62% Remain. If Brexit meant the end of the Union Yes would be on over 60% in every poll now.
Instead Yes is only on 50% at most, little different to the 45% it got in 2014 before Brexit
The only major political event of the next 4 years is the Section 30 request (hyperbole? - I live in Scotland)
And literally the only thing the sitting (maybe Bozo) PM has to do is write a letter.
Unlike you remoaners I want to remain British as long as possible.
The reality is there is still nowhere near enough votes for a United Ireland. Even in the midst of Brexit and the shite over goods transit, there still isn't the numbers, not anywhere near it. The Union is still pretty comfortable all round for far too many and assuming a lot of absurdities of the Brexit agreement are levelled out, which I think is likely, then the anger over it within some sections of unionism will fade.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1488265815736532992?s=20&t=eqE8nLOZM3jGboI4dRFBGA
Incidentally polling in Wales looks equally dire. After the next GE the Conservatives may not have a seat outside England.
Ah...wait a while and see if anything changes.
The Tories won more seats in Scotland and in Wales after the Brexit vote in 2019 than they did before the Brexit vote in 2015.
Boris is the most successful Tory leader in Wales ever, indeed even now the Tory voteshare has declined less in Wales since 2019 than the UK average
For Boris, like Corbyn, the key to holding on until the general election is keeping the support of most of the party
Scotland is a mess because of an SNP+Green Administration and the fact that we've been divided since 2014.
I almost want an indyref2 ASAP to get the drama over with.
But of course we won't get a Section 30 request any time soon because SNP Types have their own timetable for things (Like a Section 30 request in the middle of a pandemic)
The vast vast majority of Unionists know this, wherever on the Unionist spectrum they are. Buying the power sharing game isn't the same in any way whatsoever as buying that SF has any benefit to Unionists. I know a lot of garden centre Prods, the classic middle class Alliance voters who think they are above it. None of them would buy that idea of a SF First Minister being to their benefit. Not one.
Important to note that SF polling has not increased. In fact there’s been a slight trend to the centre (ie SDLP) over the past few years.
What’s happened is simply the collapse of the DUP.
Unlike you, I’m not confident of unionists getting their shit together however.
I've also been on the Porsche test track at Leipzig with Walter Rohrl and the gap in ability between him and the punters was very apparent but not Stefan Bradl level.
Regardless - I think PBers here are making a good point, professional sports people are good at their jobs.