Haven't done the maths but I guess the Germans could be as good as out if they lose to Spain?
Depends, if Costa Rica beat Japan, then Germany beat Costa Rica and Spain beat Japan, that leaves Germany, Japan and Costa Rica all on 3 and it comes down to goal difference between the three.
Edit: JPN-CRC is before GER-ESP on Sunday, so by kick-off in that latter game it could be "lose and out" for Germany.
I also pondered whether a team could actually go out with 6pts. Consider this scenario:
Costa Rica lose to all-comers (quite likely).
Spain beat Japan
Germany beat Spain
?
Yes, it's quite easy to explain in the theoretical: three teams all beat each other in a cycle, and all of them beat the fourth team in the group. No team has been knocked out of the World Cup in the thre points for a win era in these circumstances - however, in 1994 Argentina and Belgium both finished third in their groups with 6 points, but that was in a 24 team competition so both advanced anyway. If you go back before three points for a win, it happpened in 1982 with West Germany and Austria finishing above Algeria, all with four points.
It did happen in the 2001 Confederations Cup to South Korea.
Ooo passion fruit curd! - a taste sensation. Transforms a slice of toast.
I had fresh papaya with chilli powder the other day. Man that was phenomenal!
Sounds good actually - in the 'melon and ginger' space.
One of the nicest meals I've ever had was a Thai curry made with watermelon. I still think about it years later.
Some meals do stick in the memory, don't they? Probably my most vivid two were 1. An Italian wedding where I gorged on the 1st 5 courses not realizing there were 5 more to come. What a tough 2nd half that was. And 2. When I first bit into this dish called a "brick" in Tunisia. An eggy thing that was literally unimprovable.
Roti and doubles at Trinidad Carnival. And the first time I encountered Thai food. Those are probably the ones really lodged in my mind. And the time I accidentally spend $200 on a 14 course Japanese vegan tasting menu with tea pairings, for the wrong reasons.
The Parliamentary Tory Party is merely shifting into line with the average age of a Tory voter come the next election, i.e. around 60. It has nothing to offer anyone but the old.
Well given Labour have not won over 55s since 1997 and lost over 39 year olds in 2019, over 47 year olds in 2017, over 35 year olds in 2015 and over 25 year olds in 2010 you could equally say Labour has had nothing to offer anyone but the young since Blair until Starmer came along.
The young almost always vote Labour, the old almost always vote Tory, it is middle aged 35 to 55 year olds who decide general elections
Haven't done the maths but I guess the Germans could be as good as out if they lose to Spain?
Depends, if Costa Rica beat Japan, then Germany beat Costa Rica and Spain beat Japan, that leaves Germany, Japan and Costa Rica all on 3 and it comes down to goal difference between the three.
Edit: JPN-CRC is before GER-ESP on Sunday, so by kick-off in that latter game it could be "lose and out" for Germany.
I also pondered whether a team could actually go out with 6pts. Consider this scenario:
A more extreme version of the same thing happened in the 2013/14 Champions League group stage: Arsenal, Dortmund and Napoli all beat Marseille home and away, and all won one and lost one against each other.
I do not understand the basis upon which an elected parliamentarian can claim - as this surely does - bias on the part of “UK state apparatus”. UKSC is sworn to, and does, judge impartially.
This is the same SCOTUK that put Boris Johnson in his place over the prorogation crisis, to say SCOTUK is the UK state apparatus is the rantings of a sore loser.
I think the allegations of bias are down to the name. SCOTUK. A ruling to separate SCOT and UK would amount to self dismemberment.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
I am kind so let's run a test.
Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.
What is it?
Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.
NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.
So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.
I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.
BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
She wants to stay in power? Haven't you received the PB [Unionist] memo (2016-22) that's she's itching to be off to some UN or similar high powered sinecure?
It truly is a creative mix of chestnuts rustling in the bag on this topic. We have "she doesn't really want it" and "she does but she's given up" and "if she gets a vote and loses she'll be agitating for another one straightaway" all happily co-existing in there!
Rather giving the lie to the idea of there beiong a "PB [Unionist] memo"!
Well it's not necessarily the same people saying these things, that's true, but sometimes rather amazingly it is. And then I think ... well everyone knows what I think about that sort of thing. I get a bit frustrated and therefore possibly a bit justifiably tarty and then people like Mark tick me off for being a 'snide-arse' and Leon throws his toys out of the pram and starts just typing things in capital letters about something else. It's a tough gig it really is.
The Parliamentary Tory Party is merely shifting into line with the average age of a Tory voter come the next election, i.e. around 60. It has nothing to offer anyone but the old.
Well given Labour have not won over 55s since 1997 and lost over 39 year olds in 2019, over 47 year olds in 2017, over 35 year olds in 2015 and over 25 year olds in 2010 you could equally say Labour has had nothing to offer anyone but the young since Blair until Starmer came along.
The young almost always vote Labour, the old almost always vote Tory, it is middle aged 35 to 55 year olds who decide general elections
Labour *might* turn out to be a craven cabal of saboteurs who are interested in nothing except fellating pensioners to remain in office. The Conservatives are already demonstrated to be such. We shall discover the truth of it come the next change of Government.
Haven't done the maths but I guess the Germans could be as good as out if they lose to Spain?
Depends, if Costa Rica beat Japan, then Germany beat Costa Rica and Spain beat Japan, that leaves Germany, Japan and Costa Rica all on 3 and it comes down to goal difference between the three.
Edit: JPN-CRC is before GER-ESP on Sunday, so by kick-off in that latter game it could be "lose and out" for Germany.
I also pondered whether a team could actually go out with 6pts. Consider this scenario:
Costa Rica lose to all-comers (quite likely).
Spain beat Japan
Germany beat Spain
?
Yes, it's quite easy to explain in the theoretical: three teams all beat each other in a cycle, and all of them beat the fourth team in the group. No team has been knocked out of the World Cup in the thre points for a win era in these circumstances - however, in 1994 Argentina and Belgium both finished third in their groups with 6 points, but that was in a 24 team competition so both advanced anyway. If you go back before three points for a win, it happpened in 1982 with West Germany and Austria finishing above Algeria, all with four points.
It did happen in the 2001 Confederations Cup to South Korea.
Now you're talking. Good faith and thinking cap shining out of this post.
So, in summary, former PM @BorisJohnson casually told CNN that the German government wanted Ukraine to lose the war quickly, and the official spokesman of the German government just called him a liar in an official statement. Not the best day for UK-German relations, as days go.
Ambassador says German minister was against helping Ukraine following invasion.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to Germany Andriy Melnyk said that German Finance Minister Christian Lindner thought Ukraine would fall within hours and was ready to talk to a Russian-installed puppet regime.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
The Parliamentary Tory Party is merely shifting into line with the average age of a Tory voter come the next election, i.e. around 60. It has nothing to offer anyone but the old.
Well given Labour have not won over 55s since 1997 and lost over 39 year olds in 2019, over 47 year olds in 2017, over 35 year olds in 2015 and over 25 year olds in 2010 you could equally say Labour has had nothing to offer anyone but the young since Blair until Starmer came along.
The young almost always vote Labour, the old almost always vote Tory, it is middle aged 35 to 55 year olds who decide general elections
The age group that is generally not being helped by the Tories?
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I do not understand the basis upon which an elected parliamentarian can claim - as this surely does - bias on the part of “UK state apparatus”. UKSC is sworn to, and does, judge impartially.
This is the same SCOTUK that put Boris Johnson in his place over the prorogation crisis, to say SCOTUK is the UK state apparatus is the rantings of a sore loser.
I think the allegations of bias are down to the name. SCOTUK. A ruling to separate SCOT and UK would amount to self dismemberment.
It's a baseless and immensely tedious argument which proceeds from the fundamental assumption that all the institutions of a state that Scottish voters freely voted to remain inside less than ten years ago are devoted to the oppression of Scottish voters. It's crap. The court has done nothing but confirm the balance of competences under which devolution was created and continues to function.
Ultimately, irrespective of the legal and constitutional arguments, the Scottish Government would not find itself frustrated, and its more loopy members and supporters wouldn't be lashing out left, right and centre at anyone who displeases them, if they had established a clear and sustained majority in favour of separation. The fact that their electorate is still split right down the middle and stubbornly refuses to break the way they want is on them for failing to win the argument, and it must drive them bonkers.
Ooo passion fruit curd! - a taste sensation. Transforms a slice of toast.
I had fresh papaya with chilli powder the other day. Man that was phenomenal!
Sounds good actually - in the 'melon and ginger' space.
One of the nicest meals I've ever had was a Thai curry made with watermelon. I still think about it years later.
Some meals do stick in the memory, don't they? Probably my most vivid two were 1. An Italian wedding where I gorged on the 1st 5 courses not realizing there were 5 more to come. What a tough 2nd half that was. And 2. When I first bit into this dish called a "brick" in Tunisia. An eggy thing that was literally unimprovable.
Roti and doubles at Trinidad Carnival. And the first time I encountered Thai food. Those are probably the ones really lodged in my mind. And the time I accidentally spend $200 on a 14 course Japanese vegan tasting menu with tea pairings, for the wrong reasons.
Ah the expensive mistake. Yep, did that once in very awkward circs. In Cannes, working, out for dinner on shared expenses with a bloke from Liverpool who prided himself on living cheap as chips and pocketing the profit from our fixed and very generous per diem allowance. I ordered a bottle of what I thought was the house red but I'd pointed wrong and said it wrong, and we ended up with a fine vintage wine, the most costly they had, very nice and all but an eyewatering amount on the bill when it came. The ensuing 'atmosphere' between me and this chap lasted for weeks.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
Yes, the UK works quite well. (As does the EU too)
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
If anything it probably needs to be bigger and spent on capital investment so there's a big element of catch up.
Ooo passion fruit curd! - a taste sensation. Transforms a slice of toast.
I had fresh papaya with chilli powder the other day. Man that was phenomenal!
Sounds good actually - in the 'melon and ginger' space.
One of the nicest meals I've ever had was a Thai curry made with watermelon. I still think about it years later.
Some meals do stick in the memory, don't they? Probably my most vivid two were 1. An Italian wedding where I gorged on the 1st 5 courses not realizing there were 5 more to come. What a tough 2nd half that was. And 2. When I first bit into this dish called a "brick" in Tunisia. An eggy thing that was literally unimprovable.
Roti and doubles at Trinidad Carnival. And the first time I encountered Thai food. Those are probably the ones really lodged in my mind. And the time I accidentally spend $200 on a 14 course Japanese vegan tasting menu with tea pairings, for the wrong reasons.
Ah the expensive mistake. Yep, did that once in very awkward circs. In Cannes, working, out for dinner on shared expenses with a bloke from Liverpool who prided himself on living cheap as chips and pocketing the profit from our fixed and very generous per diem allowance. I ordered a bottle of what I thought was the house red but I'd pointed wrong and said it wrong, and we ended up with a fine vintage wine, the most costly they had, very nice and all but an eyewatering amount on the bill when it came. The ensuing 'atmosphere' between me and this chap lasted for weeks.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
I like the idea of a common currency for countries with closely matched economies and political cultures. I think the pros outweigh the cons then.
So, in summary, former PM @BorisJohnson casually told CNN that the German government wanted Ukraine to lose the war quickly, and the official spokesman of the German government just called him a liar in an official statement. Not the best day for UK-German relations, as days go.
Ambassador says German minister was against helping Ukraine following invasion.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to Germany Andriy Melnyk said that German Finance Minister Christian Lindner thought Ukraine would fall within hours and was ready to talk to a Russian-installed puppet regime.
Eh? Why would it damage U.K./Ger relations? Has she missed that he left, and was actually forced out by the new guy? Also, in any case, unless you have Trump as a leader this stuff doesn’t impact diplomatic relations.
Ooo passion fruit curd! - a taste sensation. Transforms a slice of toast.
I had fresh papaya with chilli powder the other day. Man that was phenomenal!
Sounds good actually - in the 'melon and ginger' space.
One of the nicest meals I've ever had was a Thai curry made with watermelon. I still think about it years later.
Some meals do stick in the memory, don't they? Probably my most vivid two were 1. An Italian wedding where I gorged on the 1st 5 courses not realizing there were 5 more to come. What a tough 2nd half that was. And 2. When I first bit into this dish called a "brick" in Tunisia. An eggy thing that was literally unimprovable.
Roti and doubles at Trinidad Carnival. And the first time I encountered Thai food. Those are probably the ones really lodged in my mind. And the time I accidentally spend $200 on a 14 course Japanese vegan tasting menu with tea pairings, for the wrong reasons.
Ah the expensive mistake. Yep, did that once in very awkward circs. In Cannes, working, out for dinner on shared expenses with a bloke from Liverpool who prided himself on living cheap as chips and pocketing the profit from our fixed and very generous per diem allowance. I ordered a bottle of what I thought was the house red but I'd pointed wrong and said it wrong, and we ended up with a fine vintage wine, the most costly they had, very nice and all but an eyewatering amount on the bill when it came. The ensuing 'atmosphere' between me and this chap lasted for weeks.
Bet the cheap bastard still drank his share!
He sure did - but he almost brought it back up when the bill came. Me, I thought it was quite funny but horses for courses.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
Ireland, all of it, is a foreign country.
So the people of NI’s vote to stay in the UK has no value?
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
They do (though not just OAP ones). It makes a mockery of the laughable claim that because you might find a few examples of a village approving some expansion, that all you need to do is select housing in the 'right place' for people to approve of it. Not unless you are lucky.
Anyone saying the solution is build on brownfield first is peddling an over simplistic solution, for one ignoring that there are often already policies about prioritising that (albeit these could be strenghthened), and in any case it would not obviate the need for some building not on brownfield, since you wouldn't get all needed housing on there even if you pack it in very densely (which people object to as well).
See also overuse of 'green belt', which it was asked on here once if it makes any difference than, say, green fields, with the answer being yes it does make a considerable difference, as nimbys through ignorance and sometimes intent conflate the two to imply every bit of previously undeveloped land (whatever its quality or suitability) should have the level of protection of land actually designated as green belt.
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
Ireland, all of it, is a foreign country.
So the people of NI’s vote to stay in the UK has no value?
"In comments that are likely to cause a stir among European leaders, Boris Johnson told CNN Portugal: "This thing was a huge shock… we could see the Russian battalion tactical groups amassing, but different countries had very different perspectives.
"The German view was at one stage that if it were going to happen, which would be a disaster, then it would be better for the whole thing to be over quickly, and for Ukraine to fold," he said.
Mr Johnson said there were "all sorts of sound economic reasons" for this approach but that he "couldn't support" it.
He also made comments on French President Emmanuel Macron, who had spearheaded Europe's bid to deter Vladimir Putin through diplomatic talks.
"Be in no doubt that the French were in denial right up until the last moment," Mr Johnson said."
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
I am kind so let's run a test.
Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.
What is it?
Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.
NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.
So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.
I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.
BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
But how can we distinguish this from someone pursuing a rational strategy of (i) building up the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to get another Sindy vote and (ii) at the same time trying to build up enough domestic support for Sindy to win it when it comes - ie following the only realistic route there is to an Independent Scotland by (say) the end of the decade?
Answer, we can't - because they look the same. By definition they do.
Therefore, given the evidence supports both, we're faced with a choice. Has she secretly given up on the dream - her lifelong political passion - or is she not only still working on it but following the path she judges the best way to get there?
It's a no brainer surely. The fair and default assumption is the 2nd. The 1st is a conspiracy theory we don't need because the evidence perfectly fits the default.
Thanks. Absolutely fair points. I should think all of these things pass through her astute mind. For myself I think she knows it will not happen in her day, but wants to play the hand the best she can. Though, as PBers all know, these things are all probabilities, including all assertions of fact.
I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.
"In comments that are likely to cause a stir among European leaders, Boris Johnson told CNN Portugal: "This thing was a huge shock… we could see the Russian battalion tactical groups amassing, but different countries had very different perspectives.
"The German view was at one stage that if it were going to happen, which would be a disaster, then it would be better for the whole thing to be over quickly, and for Ukraine to fold," he said.
Mr Johnson said there were "all sorts of sound economic reasons" for this approach but that he "couldn't support" it.
He also made comments on French President Emmanuel Macron, who had spearheaded Europe's bid to deter Vladimir Putin through diplomatic talks.
"Be in no doubt that the French were in denial right up until the last moment," Mr Johnson said."
A very good point. Scotuk has wandered deeply into the realm of politics here, something they managed to studiously avoidd in Miller II.
They made that clear as in this case a referendum without Westminster consent was clearly encroaching on Westminster's reserved power over the future of the Union
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
Not if it destroys the character of the area. Get a greater grip on immigration and fewer new homes would need to be built anyway
A very good point. Scotuk has wandered deeply into the realm of politics here, something they managed to studiously avoidd in Miller II.
They made that clear as in this case a referendum without Westminster consent was clearly encroaching on Westminster's reserved power over the future of the Union
I think he means the more general point about the practical effect of a referendum, even if not legal, being relevant therefore to their authorisation and construction.
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
I am kind so let's run a test.
Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.
What is it?
Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.
NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.
So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.
I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.
BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
But how can we distinguish this from someone pursuing a rational strategy of (i) building up the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to get another Sindy vote and (ii) at the same time trying to build up enough domestic support for Sindy to win it when it comes - ie following the only realistic route there is to an Independent Scotland by (say) the end of the decade?
Answer, we can't - because they look the same. By definition they do.
Therefore, given the evidence supports both, we're faced with a choice. Has she secretly given up on the dream - her lifelong political passion - or is she not only still working on it but following the path she judges the best way to get there?
It's a no brainer surely. The fair and default assumption is the 2nd. The 1st is a conspiracy theory we don't need because the evidence perfectly fits the default.
Thanks. Absolutely fair points. I should think all of these things pass through her astute mind. For myself I think she knows it will not happen in her day, but wants to play the hand the best she can. Though, as PBers all know, these things are all probabilities, including all assertions of fact.
I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.
"does her best to run Scotland" needs some forensic examination, against how badly services are actually delivered. Her best - whilst juggling all those other balls - might not be best for Scotland.
So, in summary, former PM @BorisJohnson casually told CNN that the German government wanted Ukraine to lose the war quickly, and the official spokesman of the German government just called him a liar in an official statement. Not the best day for UK-German relations, as days go.
Ambassador says German minister was against helping Ukraine following invasion.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to Germany Andriy Melnyk said that German Finance Minister Christian Lindner thought Ukraine would fall within hours and was ready to talk to a Russian-installed puppet regime.
Eh? Why would it damage U.K./Ger relations? Has she missed that he left, and was actually forced out by the new guy? Also, in any case, unless you have Trump as a leader this stuff doesn’t impact diplomatic relations.
Because if Johnson is irrelevant why did the German Ambassador feel impelled to dignify it with comment? Johnson’s remarks need to be read in full, not the selectively quoted bits.
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
I am kind so let's run a test.
Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.
What is it?
Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.
NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.
So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.
I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.
BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
But how can we distinguish this from someone pursuing a rational strategy of (i) building up the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to get another Sindy vote and (ii) at the same time trying to build up enough domestic support for Sindy to win it when it comes - ie following the only realistic route there is to an Independent Scotland by (say) the end of the decade?
Answer, we can't - because they look the same. By definition they do.
Therefore, given the evidence supports both, we're faced with a choice. Has she secretly given up on the dream - her lifelong political passion - or is she not only still working on it but following the path she judges the best way to get there?
It's a no brainer surely. The fair and default assumption is the 2nd. The 1st is a conspiracy theory we don't need because the evidence perfectly fits the default.
Thanks. Absolutely fair points. I should think all of these things pass through her astute mind. For myself I think she knows it will not happen in her day, but wants to play the hand the best she can. Though, as PBers all know, these things are all probabilities, including all assertions of fact.
I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.
"does her best to run Scotland" needs some forensic examination, against how badly services are actually delivered. Her best - whilst juggling all those other balls - might not be best for Scotland.
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
I am kind so let's run a test.
Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.
What is it?
Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.
NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.
So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.
I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.
BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
But how can we distinguish this from someone pursuing a rational strategy of (i) building up the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to get another Sindy vote and (ii) at the same time trying to build up enough domestic support for Sindy to win it when it comes - ie following the only realistic route there is to an Independent Scotland by (say) the end of the decade?
Answer, we can't - because they look the same. By definition they do.
Therefore, given the evidence supports both, we're faced with a choice. Has she secretly given up on the dream - her lifelong political passion - or is she not only still working on it but following the path she judges the best way to get there?
It's a no brainer surely. The fair and default assumption is the 2nd. The 1st is a conspiracy theory we don't need because the evidence perfectly fits the default.
Thanks. Absolutely fair points. I should think all of these things pass through her astute mind. For myself I think she knows it will not happen in her day, but wants to play the hand the best she can. Though, as PBers all know, these things are all probabilities, including all assertions of fact.
I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.
"does her best to run Scotland" needs some forensic examination, against how badly services are actually delivered. Her best - whilst juggling all those other balls - might not be best for Scotland.
Westminster picks up the bill.
Westminster certainly picks up the blame for SNP failures.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
Spot on. No other way is tenable. All this waffle about coding into law some sort of "once in a generation opportunity" ... I mean, c'mon, honestly.
So the people and businesses of the UK have to constantly live with the threat of an independence referendum every 6 months? How is that a tenable proposition?
It's not. It is ridiculous. @kinabalu is being childish
On the contrary. You (and some others) are doing a mix of trolling and wishcasting. I'm analyzing the situation, getting to the heart of it, and explaining Sturgeon's rationale and strategy.
Except that the SNP themselves are asking for what I am suggesting
"Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, is responding to Jack.
He says the “thoughtless triumphalism” of unionists will not last long.
He says the Scotland Act should be amended to say the Scottish people have the right to choose their future"
He is right. The Scotland Act should be amended so that the Nats have a guaranteed democratic route to a referendum, which is more than they have ever had before. But the price must be a long time gap between votes, the UK cannot abide the uncertainty of a vote every five years. It should be 20 or 25 years. A real generation
That's where a compromise might be found which respects the needs and rights of all sides
If the Scots had another vote tomorrow and narrowly voted NO, the SNP would be back in a few weeks demanding another on whatever grounds. They won't say Oh well, we give up
You simply ignore this, either out of stupidity or a weird wilful naivety
But he doesn't mention the plainly ridiculous notion of coding "once a generation" does he?
You need to replace illogical prejudice with a working order thinking cap. At present you aren't worth reading on this topic.
Well if he refuses to respect the once in a generation 2014 referendum, then no amendment to the Scotland Act and after the SC ruling the UK government can effectively refuse indyref2 forever
It can't. If support for Sindy in Scotland grows and is persistently over 50% - a big if, yes, but let's assume - there's no way it won't happen. The UK isn't tenable in this modern democratic age as a forced anti-consensual union.
Completely agree. I also don’t understand those on here who would want it to be. If any part of a union looks like it might want to leave then you have to test the theory and let it go if proven. Why keep them in against their will?
I believe one rarely aknowledged factor is that *some* English people have a deep, atavistic fear of living in a country with a land border. Rather than confront this they generate hypocritical & dishonest guff about once in a generation, the oppressiveness of the EU v. the freedom loving UK and claim insight into what Scots really want.
I don't understand the logic. I mean, what's that thing in Ireland if not a land border?
Ireland, all of it, is a foreign country.
So the people of NI’s vote to stay in the UK has no value?
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
True, but that was largely a Marxism de-fence, plus some GBD on top. United blue and red wall.
Neither apply next time.
The fact most over 39s still own property applies next time, we need some new housing in brownbelt land, particularly around London which is the most expensive UK region property wise. We do not need to build all over the greenbelt
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
Not if it destroys the character of the area. Get a greater grip on immigration and fewer new homes would need to be built anyway
People can argue anything destroys the character of an area. Sometimes areas have no particularly distinctive character and inspectors overrule that objection as building can even enhance the character of an area (indeed, sometimes things are approved on the basis there may be some harm from the development, say loss of some fields, but this is outweighed by the positives).
But in any case I'm not arguing for a free for all without any consideration of issues raised by local people or boies, just that the planning system is built on rules and policies, and you cannot simply take a submission at face value as to the effect of a development. That goes for pro and anti development sides.
Developers moan incessantly about all the things they have to prove or demonstrate about their developments - landscaping plans, environmental statements, transport assessments, archaelogical assessments etc - and some people think their word is accepted too easily. But likewise, those objecting on what may be legitimate grounds of things like impact on character or amenity, highways issues etc, also have to actually demonstrate those grounds, not just assert them.
ETA: or to be more brief, just because someone says it destroys the character of an area, doesn't mean it actually does. That's why local representatives such as yourself have to weigh up the evidence.
"Brownfield first" is the 'Tax the bankers/cut pen pushers' of planning - it might even be a good idea, but it won't solve everything even if politicians campaigning for votes pretend it will.
If I was Sturgeon I'd call a referendum about having a referendum. I don't think ahead actually believes in her cause as much as she makes out though and is happier being in charge of a devolved government than actually being independent
If I was Sturgeon I'd call a referendum about having a referendum. I don't think ahead actually believes in her cause as much as she makes out though and is happier being in charge of a devolved government than actually being independent
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
I'm not so sure about that.
I could see circumstances where a legal case could be brought before the ECJ under the treaties that a country met all the criteria for joining the euro, but was stalling, and it could rule such that the country was legally obligated to join.
And, remember, under the Lisbon Treaty the EU now has legal identity.
The funny thing about being opposed to development is I'm not sure how much it really aids MPs, or certainly local councillors. It's quite rare for them to back development of housing in their own areas (I won't say it never happens) even if they are very rabid about housing development generally, they will often find a reason their area or example is different.
So at local level you end up with almost every candidate being opposed to that new estate or whatever to varying degrees, and the difference is in how they might frame it eg no development anywhere, I'm not against it but it is in the wrong place etc. So I'm not sure how much advantage they get to the stance - clearly beneficial to being elected in most cases, but you don't stand out.
I wonder whether petrol prices will begin to drop before Xmas. WTI is down below $80 and sterling steady at $1.18-1.20, it should lead to a 7-8p drop in pump prices as my finger in the air guess.
Already coming through. Two weeks ago I filled my car up with the cheapest diesel in the area at 185.9 - today I filled up at 176.0. That's almost £7 a tank less for my dirty old diesel estate car... As seems to be the current trend, it's my local independent filling station pushing prices down, my local Morrisons is still at about 183.9
If you're in Shropshire, DA Roberts at Grindley Brook has diesel at 163.9 and petrol at 145.9, which suggests a lot of profiteering elsewhere in the sector (alas, they aren't local enough for me to justify going there to fill up, even with a 75l tank).
Be rnice if we get a further drop by Christmas, I've a lot of miles to do around then....
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
Not if it destroys the character of the area. Get a greater grip on immigration and fewer new homes would need to be built anyway
People can argue anything destroys the character of an area. Sometimes areas have no particularly distinctive character and inspectors overrule that objection as building can even enhance the character of an area (indeed, sometimes things are approved on the basis there may be some harm from the development, say loss of some fields, but this is outweighed by the positives).
But in any case I'm not arguing for a free for all without any consideration of issues raised by local people or boies, just that the planning system is built on rules and policies, and you cannot simply take a submission at face value as to the effect of a development. That goes for pro and anti development sides.
Developers moan incessantly about all the things they have to prove or demonstrate about their developments - landscaping plans, environmental statements, transport assessments, archaelogical assessments etc - and some people think their word is accepted too easily. But likewise, those objecting on what may be legitimate grounds of things like impact on character or amenity, highways issues etc, also have to actually demonstrate those grounds, not just assert them.
ETA: or to be more brief, just because someone says it destroys the character of an area, doesn't mean it actually does. That's why local representatives such as yourself have to weigh up the evidence.
"Brownfield first" is the 'Tax the bankers/cut pen pushers' of planning - it might even be a good idea, but it won't solve everything even if politicians campaigning for votes pretend it will.
I agree with this generally, but there must be some reason why British cities are so low rise compared with peer nations.
Indyref is two sides manoeuvring a negotiation position. Which is fine. In the end if people keep voting for you to ask a question you will eventually get to ask the question. If I were in Westminster I'd have thought about forcing the referendum but on my terms. As it stands they've chosen to delay it, and with it some degree of control.
(I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)
I agree the government needs to provide a route to independence.
Suggest:
25 year interval between votes; franchise 18+ and open to voters born in Scotland and now living outside Scotland; absolute majority of electorate needed.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
Not if it destroys the character of the area. Get a greater grip on immigration and fewer new homes would need to be built anyway
People can argue anything destroys the character of an area. Sometimes areas have no particularly distinctive character and inspectors overrule that objection as building can even enhance the character of an area (indeed, sometimes things are approved on the basis there may be some harm from the development, say loss of some fields, but this is outweighed by the positives).
But in any case I'm not arguing for a free for all without any consideration of issues raised by local people or boies, just that the planning system is built on rules and policies, and you cannot simply take a submission at face value as to the effect of a development. That goes for pro and anti development sides.
Developers moan incessantly about all the things they have to prove or demonstrate about their developments - landscaping plans, environmental statements, transport assessments, archaelogical assessments etc - and some people think their word is accepted too easily. But likewise, those objecting on what may be legitimate grounds of things like impact on character or amenity, highways issues etc, also have to actually demonstrate those grounds, not just assert them.
ETA: or to be more brief, just because someone says it destroys the character of an area, doesn't mean it actually does. That's why local representatives such as yourself have to weigh up the evidence.
"Brownfield first" is the 'Tax the bankers/cut pen pushers' of planning - it might even be a good idea, but it won't solve everything even if politicians campaigning for votes pretend it will.
I agree with this generally, but there must be some reason why British cities are so low rise compared with peer nations.
There are many, including, but not limited to, differing preferences of customers, a legal and cultural framework which has historically favoured ownership, and which favours freehold of land, a self-reinforcing low-density-leads-to-relatively-few-services-leads-to-low-density, and the industrial revolution.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Yes, it needs a treasury which means EU taxes at which point it may as well be a country and the former nation states shadows of their former selves.
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
Not if it destroys the character of the area. Get a greater grip on immigration and fewer new homes would need to be built anyway
People can argue anything destroys the character of an area. Sometimes areas have no particularly distinctive character and inspectors overrule that objection as building can even enhance the character of an area (indeed, sometimes things are approved on the basis there may be some harm from the development, say loss of some fields, but this is outweighed by the positives).
But in any case I'm not arguing for a free for all without any consideration of issues raised by local people or boies, just that the planning system is built on rules and policies, and you cannot simply take a submission at face value as to the effect of a development. That goes for pro and anti development sides.
Developers moan incessantly about all the things they have to prove or demonstrate about their developments - landscaping plans, environmental statements, transport assessments, archaelogical assessments etc - and some people think their word is accepted too easily. But likewise, those objecting on what may be legitimate grounds of things like impact on character or amenity, highways issues etc, also have to actually demonstrate those grounds, not just assert them.
ETA: or to be more brief, just because someone says it destroys the character of an area, doesn't mean it actually does. That's why local representatives such as yourself have to weigh up the evidence.
"Brownfield first" is the 'Tax the bankers/cut pen pushers' of planning - it might even be a good idea, but it won't solve everything even if politicians campaigning for votes pretend it will.
I agree with this generally, but there must be some reason why British cities are so low rise compared with peer nations.
There are many, including, but not limited to, differing preferences of customers, a legal and cultural framework which has historically favoured ownership, and which favours freehold of land, a self-reinforcing low-density-leads-to-relatively-few-services-leads-to-low-density, and the industrial revolution.
All sound plausible.
My point is that we needn’t touch another field in England if we were willing to entertain more density.
Amsterdam might be a good model (or at least, more relatable than Paris or New York).
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
The Euro terminates your ability to vary your monetary policy (interest rates, quantitative easing, removing excess reserves etc.) ever again, and the ability for your currency to act as an automatic market stabiliser in times of recession or boom.
In return, you get fixed exchange rates and lower cross-border frictional costs.
It makes sense if your economy is so totally integrated with a neighbours, and your politics so similar, that possessing your own currency is a vanity project, and one that not many people are bothered by.
If I was Sturgeon I'd call a referendum about having a referendum. I don't think ahead actually believes in her cause as much as she makes out though and is happier being in charge of a devolved government than actually being independent
Oh god not you as well. Course she wants Sindy!
On your idea, interesting, but I don't see how it would add much to the Holyrood mandate.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Yes, it needs a treasury which means EU taxes at which point it may as well be a country and the former nation states shadows of their former selves.
And, this is why I voted Leave.
I didn't believe there was any other long-term protection against this, and I didn't trust further Labour-LD governments not to bounce it.
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
I am kind so let's run a test.
Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.
What is it?
Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.
NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.
So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.
I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.
BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
But how can we distinguish this from someone pursuing a rational strategy of (i) building up the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to get another Sindy vote and (ii) at the same time trying to build up enough domestic support for Sindy to win it when it comes - ie following the only realistic route there is to an Independent Scotland by (say) the end of the decade?
Answer, we can't - because they look the same. By definition they do.
Therefore, given the evidence supports both, we're faced with a choice. Has she secretly given up on the dream - her lifelong political passion - or is she not only still working on it but following the path she judges the best way to get there?
It's a no brainer surely. The fair and default assumption is the 2nd. The 1st is a conspiracy theory we don't need because the evidence perfectly fits the default.
Thanks. Absolutely fair points. I should think all of these things pass through her astute mind. For myself I think she knows it will not happen in her day, but wants to play the hand the best she can. Though, as PBers all know, these things are all probabilities, including all assertions of fact.
I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.
It's a challenge but I can't see a reason to think she's given up on it. Definitely agree that losing a 2nd Sindy Ref ends it for a long time and that she'll be very alert to that risk.
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
Not if it destroys the character of the area. Get a greater grip on immigration and fewer new homes would need to be built anyway
People can argue anything destroys the character of an area. Sometimes areas have no particularly distinctive character and inspectors overrule that objection as building can even enhance the character of an area (indeed, sometimes things are approved on the basis there may be some harm from the development, say loss of some fields, but this is outweighed by the positives).
But in any case I'm not arguing for a free for all without any consideration of issues raised by local people or boies, just that the planning system is built on rules and policies, and you cannot simply take a submission at face value as to the effect of a development. That goes for pro and anti development sides.
Developers moan incessantly about all the things they have to prove or demonstrate about their developments - landscaping plans, environmental statements, transport assessments, archaelogical assessments etc - and some people think their word is accepted too easily. But likewise, those objecting on what may be legitimate grounds of things like impact on character or amenity, highways issues etc, also have to actually demonstrate those grounds, not just assert them.
ETA: or to be more brief, just because someone says it destroys the character of an area, doesn't mean it actually does. That's why local representatives such as yourself have to weigh up the evidence.
"Brownfield first" is the 'Tax the bankers/cut pen pushers' of planning - it might even be a good idea, but it won't solve everything even if politicians campaigning for votes pretend it will.
I agree with this generally, but there must be some reason why British cities are so low rise compared with peer nations.
In Germany it's very typical to live in a cheap but spacious, commercially let apartment in town while you save up a substantial deposit before buying a typically large, detached house in the suburbs. Large estates of tiny occupier-owned houses of the kind often found in the UK are not common at all.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
This is the inevitable long-term direction of the eurozone. Such measures were on the table under the Juncker commission.
The minor concessions that Cameron delivered weren't enough to convince me our long-term future was secure, and I knew another vote was decades away if we voted Remain. So I voted to Leave.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Yes, it needs a treasury which means EU taxes at which point it may as well be a country and the former nation states shadows of their former selves.
And, this is why I voted Leave.
I didn't believe there was any other long-term protection against this, and I didn't trust further Labour-LD governments not to bounce it.
Yes, that's where I was as well. I fully realised it would be a pretty bumpy road afterwards but the alternative was my children growing up in a USE with the UK relegated to a region or state. That may be fine for countries in the EU but the destruction of our nation state isn't something for which I could vote in favour. All of the nonsense about jumping off the train later was just bullshit because it would have been even more difficult and the political forces simply wouldn't have given us an option, just as they didn't with the Lisbon Treaty, knowing that the public would say no.
What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
Yet still most over 39s voted Tory in 2019, not just pensioners.
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
In reality OAP nimbys object to building on mythical brownbelt too
Most are BANANAs, not NIMBYs.
That's their effect, but I think many people genuinely are only concerned with their back yard. That's why you need policies to apply which can overrule them!
Not if it destroys the character of the area. Get a greater grip on immigration and fewer new homes would need to be built anyway
People can argue anything destroys the character of an area. Sometimes areas have no particularly distinctive character and inspectors overrule that objection as building can even enhance the character of an area (indeed, sometimes things are approved on the basis there may be some harm from the development, say loss of some fields, but this is outweighed by the positives).
But in any case I'm not arguing for a free for all without any consideration of issues raised by local people or boies, just that the planning system is built on rules and policies, and you cannot simply take a submission at face value as to the effect of a development. That goes for pro and anti development sides.
Developers moan incessantly about all the things they have to prove or demonstrate about their developments - landscaping plans, environmental statements, transport assessments, archaelogical assessments etc - and some people think their word is accepted too easily. But likewise, those objecting on what may be legitimate grounds of things like impact on character or amenity, highways issues etc, also have to actually demonstrate those grounds, not just assert them.
ETA: or to be more brief, just because someone says it destroys the character of an area, doesn't mean it actually does. That's why local representatives such as yourself have to weigh up the evidence.
"Brownfield first" is the 'Tax the bankers/cut pen pushers' of planning - it might even be a good idea, but it won't solve everything even if politicians campaigning for votes pretend it will.
I agree with this generally, but there must be some reason why British cities are so low rise compared with peer nations.
Cardiff seems to have rather more mid-rise buildings than Bristol although Bristol is a bigger conurbation. They had a policy against such things if I understand correctly.
Indyref is two sides manoeuvring a negotiation position. Which is fine. In the end if people keep voting for you to ask a question you will eventually get to ask the question. If I were in Westminster I'd have thought about forcing the referendum but on my terms. As it stands they've chosen to delay it, and with it some degree of control.
(I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)
Only if more people don't keep on voting for you NOT to ask the question. Which is what makes the latest roll of the dice so risky. The SNP is capable of getting to 50% of the popular vote - it's been done before - but they've only managed it the once, and they're going to have to get almost all the way there again by themselves come the next election. It's not as if the Greens and Alba are going to contribute all that much.
If they manage it, their opponents will simply disregard the achievement: general elections aren't single issue votes, regardless of whether or not one party insists that they are. But if they fail, then what?
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
It's not the case for all people who voted Remain but the most vocal FBPE crowd are hoping to use economic frustration to permanently bounce the UK back into the whole thing.
Indyref is two sides manoeuvring a negotiation position. Which is fine. In the end if people keep voting for you to ask a question you will eventually get to ask the question. If I were in Westminster I'd have thought about forcing the referendum but on my terms. As it stands they've chosen to delay it, and with it some degree of control.
(I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)
Only if more people don't keep on voting for you NOT to ask the question. Which is what makes the latest roll of the dice so risky. The SNP is capable of getting to 50% of the popular vote - it's been done before - but they've only managed it the once, and they're going to have to get almost all the way there again by themselves come the next election. It's not as if the Greens and Alba are going to contribute all that much.
If they manage it, their opponents will simply disregard the achievement: general elections aren't single issue votes, regardless of whether or not one party insists that they are. But if they fail, then what?
As long as a majority of the Scottish Parliament is SNP MP's they will push for a referendum. Less than 50% of the electorate voted to Get Brexit Done in 2019 but, we did. 50% of the Scottish Electorate voting for it makes no difference either way.
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
She can take her time for the simple reason that Scotland isn't going to vote for independence and that until they have voted NO again NS's position is safe, so the longer this goes on the better. The SC case - the outcome was obvious - was merely a tactic to ensure that the supporters thought she had done all she could, and to buy time. meanwhile there are oceans of jobs for the boys and girls in Edinburgh and Westminster.
A major problem remains: as long as England is outside the SM and CU then the Gretna border (big razor wire fence perhaps) remains insoluble. The ROI/NI problem proves that fine words and promises don't deliver a solution.
Lots of others too like, yes we want NATO but not its actual mode of defence thanks..
Will some Scottish hotheads start outflanking her with talk of UDI and civil disobedience? Maybe there aren't any hotheads.
Reading the innermost thoughts of Nicola Sturgeon and discovering they are at odds with everything she does and says - what a spooky talent! How about the Edinburgh Fringe next year?
How kind. Some politicians do display a gap between words, deeds and motives. They all have to read holistically. Opinions may vary.
I am kind so let's run a test.
Nicola Sturgeon is a politician whose big cause - the cause of her life - is Sindy. So the suggestion she doesn't really want it now, that she's happy with the status quo, requires some evidence.
What is it?
Near but not quite. Yes, she would like independence, but it is plain that, on the consistent polling and the last referendum and the additional problems (especially England/Scotland border) there would be after Brexit, it can't happen. There are not the votes.
NS is a politician. She knows it can't happen. But can't say so. She wants to stay in power - she is in politics. The only way she can do so is by NOT having Ref2. When Ref2 is lost she would have to resign like Salmond.
So delay (like the SC nonsense) false prospectuses (next election as referendum etc) keeps the pan on the boil while she exercises the maximum power a Scottish government can have.
I totally sympathise with NS. She is a great politician.
BTW even if she won a Ref2, it would be a 52/48 kind of thing, and as we know that doesn't settle things all that well.
But how can we distinguish this from someone pursuing a rational strategy of (i) building up the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to get another Sindy vote and (ii) at the same time trying to build up enough domestic support for Sindy to win it when it comes - ie following the only realistic route there is to an Independent Scotland by (say) the end of the decade?
Answer, we can't - because they look the same. By definition they do.
Therefore, given the evidence supports both, we're faced with a choice. Has she secretly given up on the dream - her lifelong political passion - or is she not only still working on it but following the path she judges the best way to get there?
It's a no brainer surely. The fair and default assumption is the 2nd. The 1st is a conspiracy theory we don't need because the evidence perfectly fits the default.
Thanks. Absolutely fair points. I should think all of these things pass through her astute mind. For myself I think she knows it will not happen in her day, but wants to play the hand the best she can. Though, as PBers all know, these things are all probabilities, including all assertions of fact.
I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.
It's a challenge but I can't see a reason to think she's given up on it. Definitely agree that losing a 2nd Sindy Ref ends it for a long time and that she'll be very alert to that risk.
I've never understood that argument. What if a second vote was closer? If the demographics were leaning towards Indy in the long run? And the idea that a referendum is a once in a generation event would have been disproven too.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.
However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.
It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.
Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
England, France and Spain have all started very well - it looks to me as though an England-France quarter final is a possibility.
As for referenda, the closest I can recall was the 1997 Welsh devolution which was something like 50.3% Yes and 49.7% No. I know there has been an "Abolish the Assembly" party in Wales and it had seats in the Senedd though lost them at the last election.
You'd think with 49.7% having voted No, there'd be a huge call for another vote but it seems not.
To their credit and despite having opposed it, the Conservatives have never publicly called for the abolition of the Mayor of London and the GLA or a second referendum but, as with AV, the result was so comprehensive as to put an end to any doubt.
Some referenda put an end to questions, some do not.
Indyref is two sides manoeuvring a negotiation position. Which is fine. In the end if people keep voting for you to ask a question you will eventually get to ask the question. If I were in Westminster I'd have thought about forcing the referendum but on my terms. As it stands they've chosen to delay it, and with it some degree of control.
(I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)
Only if more people don't keep on voting for you NOT to ask the question. Which is what makes the latest roll of the dice so risky. The SNP is capable of getting to 50% of the popular vote - it's been done before - but they've only managed it the once, and they're going to have to get almost all the way there again by themselves come the next election. It's not as if the Greens and Alba are going to contribute all that much.
If they manage it, their opponents will simply disregard the achievement: general elections aren't single issue votes, regardless of whether or not one party insists that they are. But if they fail, then what?
If they fail to hit 50 they'll point to seats. 2nd best but viable. If they do make 50 they'll say done deal. It's about ratcheting up the pressure. It can't be forever resisted if majority support is reached and maintained.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.
However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.
It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.
Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
The Lisbon Treaty crossed the rubicon. Brexiteers were in a tiny minority before that.
I can think of many esteemed posters on here who never even vaguely considered it before 2009, and - although they thought it could conceivably come to that - right up until Feb 2016 were hoping for a decent renegotiation, and only jumped in the final few months.
They often get abused for their vote. Few seek to understand and address it.
My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.
However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.
It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.
Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Yes, it needs a treasury which means EU taxes at which point it may as well be a country and the former nation states shadows of their former selves.
And, this is why I voted Leave.
I didn't believe there was any other long-term protection against this, and I didn't trust further Labour-LD governments not to bounce it.
Yes, that's where I was as well. I fully realised it would be a pretty bumpy road afterwards but the alternative was my children growing up in a USE with the UK relegated to a region or state. That may be fine for countries in the EU but the destruction of our nation state isn't something for which I could vote in favour. All of the nonsense about jumping off the train later was just bullshit because it would have been even more difficult and the political forces simply wouldn't have given us an option, just as they didn't with the Lisbon Treaty, knowing that the public would say no.
What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.
Yes, that was broadly my view. I saw, and still see, the ratchet effect as inevitable. And while I don't necessarily believe in the UK in the same way that, say @HYUFD does - I don't have some principled desire for my kids to grow up, specifically, in the UK - I do believe in democracy, and a vaguely defined sort of common law freedom, which I see the UK as better able to deliver than a USE. It comes back to the rather late-medeival concept of an attachment to ones own laws and customs (which, I would note, is why Scotland remained Scotland rather than North Greag Britain, despite the act of Union.) I don't believe a USD can ever be a properly functioning democracy because of the language issue. A polity needs, in my view, a common language.
If you want an example of a governing coalition having a few polling problems, the current Norstat poll for Norway is as good an example as you'll ever find:
The Social Democrat/Centre Party coalition has lost half its support while the Conservatives are up 13 points on their 2021 result and would be back with a landslide.
Further south, the Danish government formation talks are continuing. Four parties, two from the further left and two from the further right, have dropped out leaving the Social Democrats, Venstre, the Moderates and the other parties still in talks around a broad-based centrist Government.
My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.
However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.
It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.
Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.
Those people are just hypocritical idiots. I despise them.
If you want an example of a governing coalition having a few polling problems, the current Norstat poll for Norway is as good an example as you'll ever find:
The Social Democrat/Centre Party coalition has lost half its support while the Conservatives are up 13 points on their 2021 result and would be back with a landslide.
Further south, the Danish government formation talks are continuing. Four parties, two from the further left and two from the further right, have dropped out leaving the Social Democrats, Venstre, the Moderates and the other parties still in talks around a broad-based centrist Government.
The speed with the which the Tories and LibDems formed a coalition in 2010, and the stability of that government in retrospect, gets more and more astonishing doesn’t it?
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Britain did not join the Euro and is not going to. You are fulminating against phantoms.
That's just not true. Eventually it becomes put up or shut up time and with a remain vote the answer from Brussels when we tell them no would be "but your people voted for this". It suits your agenda to pretend that the EU doesn't harbour dreams statehood but that doesn't make it true.
My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.
However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.
It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.
Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
The problem isn't really 'they ignored us', it's that a majority of Britain's political and administrative class were (and are) all in on us being right up to our necks in the EU, gold-plating every bit of stupid legislation, and getting ready behind the scenes to take us into the euro etc. David Cameron didn't want a two speed Europe. Juncker was actually quite prepared to have Britain semi-detached if the 4 freedoms were maintained. Cameron was not interested.
Does Sturgeon have the power to call an early Scottish election? If so, I think in her place I might think about that.
A two-thirds majority in the Scottish Parliament can vote for an immediate dissolution at any time; a simple majority can also, if necessary, force one by only slightly more complicated means.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
I’m ardently pro EU but wouldn’t support joining the Eurozone .
I don't think it's possible to be "ardently" pro-EU but oppose the most significant manifestation of EU integration.
I disagree. The Euro has been the cause of many of the problems as it’s a one size fits all approach when countries could do with more flexibility in terms of monetary policy .
I’ve been ardently pro EU because of the cultural links and freedom of movement and working together on a range of issues but in terms of the currency I’ve remained of the belief that the Euro has damaged EU cohesion.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the euro absent a centralised fiscal authority. Our previous opt out was great, shame we pissed that away. If we rejoined we could just do a Sweden, be formally committed to join when the time is right and never find the right time. The reality is nobody will ever be forced to join the Euro against their will. But low information voters in a rejoin referendum won't see it like that, so it's certainly a political barrier to rejoining.
The pound is a smaller scale precursor of the Euro. If the UK had run on a two currency basis - London, and elsewhere then there would have been no issue. (Other than everyone else choosing to make war on London)
But the UK has a centralised fiscal function and so London makes huge fiscal transfers to rUK every year. That's why Teeside can live with the GBP.
And so we get into the ratchet effect of ever closer union.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Yes, it needs a treasury which means EU taxes at which point it may as well be a country and the former nation states shadows of their former selves.
And, this is why I voted Leave.
I didn't believe there was any other long-term protection against this, and I didn't trust further Labour-LD governments not to bounce it.
Yes, that's where I was as well. I fully realised it would be a pretty bumpy road afterwards but the alternative was my children growing up in a USE with the UK relegated to a region or state. That may be fine for countries in the EU but the destruction of our nation state isn't something for which I could vote in favour. All of the nonsense about jumping off the train later was just bullshit because it would have been even more difficult and the political forces simply wouldn't have given us an option, just as they didn't with the Lisbon Treaty, knowing that the public would say no.
What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.
Yes, that was broadly my view. I saw, and still see, the ratchet effect as inevitable. And while I don't necessarily believe in the UK in the same way that, say @HYUFD does - I don't have some principled desire for my kids to grow up, specifically, in the UK - I do believe in democracy, and a vaguely defined sort of common law freedom, which I see the UK as better able to deliver than a USE. It comes back to the rather late-medeival concept of an attachment to ones own laws and customs (which, I would note, is why Scotland remained Scotland rather than North Greag Britain, despite the act of Union.) I don't believe a USD can ever be a properly functioning democracy because of the language issue. A polity needs, in my view, a common language.
What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.
Those people are just hypocritical idiots. I despise them.
It's based on a simple matter of dividing the world into goodies and baddies. Not much more thinking often goes on than Brexit=Trump. This is not just a criticism of North American liberals - very few people of any stripe are well informed enough to comment in detail on what is in another's best interests, but many will still have a go.
My own belief is that the central bureaucracy of the EU do want “EU statehood”. For an amazing long, long read on that, I recommend Perry Anderson’s two essays in the LRB from about a year ago.
However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.
It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.
Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
Does it not follow that if you don't want to end up in an EU superstate, the best option is to leave and negotiate with the nascent state from the outside rather than the inside?
I don't think that need alwaysnecessarily the case. But in this case - based on 40 years of failure to reform from the inside - I think you are right.
I’m afraid the 40 years of failed reform is a bit of a canard. Britain largely got it wanted to the extent that it treated the EU as much more than a peripheral matter.
The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.
Comments
It did happen in the 2001 Confederations Cup to South Korea.
The young almost always vote Labour, the old almost always vote Tory, it is middle aged 35 to 55 year olds who decide general elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013–14_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage#Group_F
Not the best day for UK-German relations, as days go.
https://twitter.com/HeleneBismarck/status/1595423807719997441
Ambassador says German minister was against helping Ukraine following invasion.
Ukraine’s Ambassador to Germany Andriy Melnyk said that German Finance Minister Christian Lindner thought Ukraine would fall within hours and was ready to talk to a Russian-installed puppet regime.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1508773288885080069
Scratch that - now 7
Ultimately, irrespective of the legal and constitutional arguments, the Scottish Government would not find itself frustrated, and its more loopy members and supporters wouldn't be lashing out left, right and centre at anyone who displeases them, if they had established a clear and sustained majority in favour of separation. The fact that their electorate is still split right down the middle and stubbornly refuses to break the way they want is on them for failing to win the argument, and it must drive them bonkers.
https://twitter.com/CitySamuel/status/1595374304249757696
Message received loud and clear: the Conservative Party is for NIMBY home-owning pensioners, not for working, aspiring home owners.
One team wins all three.
The other games are all draws.
Don't know if that's been achieved?
Development should be in brownbelt land first, not all over the greenbelt
https://davidallengreen.com/2022/11/do-referendums-now-have-a-special-constitutional-status-and-has-the-supreme-court-made-it-far-harder-for-the-uk-government-to-ignore-the-results-of-any-further-advisory-referendum-some-fascinati/
Anyone saying the solution is build on brownfield first is peddling an over simplistic solution, for one ignoring that there are often already policies about prioritising that (albeit these could be strenghthened), and in any case it would not obviate the need for some building not on brownfield, since you wouldn't get all needed housing on there even if you pack it in very densely (which people object to as well).
See also overuse of 'green belt', which it was asked on here once if it makes any difference than, say, green fields, with the answer being yes it does make a considerable difference, as nimbys through ignorance and sometimes intent conflate the two to imply every bit of previously undeveloped land (whatever its quality or suitability) should have the level of protection of land actually designated as green belt.
Remain 56%
Leave 44%
I think the probs are that NS genuinely supports independence, knows it can't be had in her day, keeps it on the boil, wants to stay leader, knows she can't if she loses Ref2, does her best to run Scotland.
look at the polling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
*with apologies to the good people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
Neither apply next time.
But in any case I'm not arguing for a free for all without any consideration of issues raised by local people or boies, just that the planning system is built on rules and policies, and you cannot simply take a submission at face value as to the effect of a development. That goes for pro and anti development sides.
Developers moan incessantly about all the things they have to prove or demonstrate about their developments - landscaping plans, environmental statements, transport assessments, archaelogical assessments etc - and some people think their word is accepted too easily. But likewise, those objecting on what may be legitimate grounds of things like impact on character or amenity, highways issues etc, also have to actually demonstrate those grounds, not just assert them.
ETA: or to be more brief, just because someone says it destroys the character of an area, doesn't mean it actually does. That's why local representatives such as yourself have to weigh up the evidence.
"Brownfield first" is the 'Tax the bankers/cut pen pushers' of planning - it might even be a good idea, but it won't solve everything even if politicians campaigning for votes pretend it will.
I don't think ahead actually believes in her cause as much as she makes out though and is happier being in charge of a devolved government than actually being independent
I could see circumstances where a legal case could be brought before the ECJ under the treaties that a country met all the criteria for joining the euro, but was stalling, and it could rule such that the country was legally obligated to join.
And, remember, under the Lisbon Treaty the EU now has legal identity.
No thank.
So at local level you end up with almost every candidate being opposed to that new estate or whatever to varying degrees, and the difference is in how they might frame it eg no development anywhere, I'm not against it but it is in the wrong place etc. So I'm not sure how much advantage they get to the stance - clearly beneficial to being elected in most cases, but you don't stand out.
If you're in Shropshire, DA Roberts at Grindley Brook has diesel at 163.9 and petrol at 145.9, which suggests a lot of profiteering elsewhere in the sector (alas, they aren't local enough for me to justify going there to fill up, even with a 75l tank).
Be rnice if we get a further drop by Christmas, I've a lot of miles to do around then....
(I don't buy that people who voted SNP the last few years are not expecting them to push for one.)
Suggest:
25 year interval between votes; franchise 18+ and open to voters born in Scotland and now living outside Scotland; absolute majority of electorate needed.
The Euro needs a central fiscal authority to work properly. That authority needs to be able to make fiscal transfers. Therefore it needs significant money. Therefore it needs to tax. Therefore we need a federal European government and chancellor of the exchequer.
Sorry, but no thanks.
My point is that we needn’t touch another field in England if we were willing to entertain more density.
Amsterdam might be a good model (or at least, more relatable than Paris or New York).
In return, you get fixed exchange rates and lower cross-border frictional costs.
It makes sense if your economy is so totally integrated with a neighbours, and your politics so similar, that possessing your own currency is a vanity project, and one that not many people are bothered by.
If not, it's a poor trade-off.
On your idea, interesting, but I don't see how it would add much to the Holyrood mandate.
I didn't believe there was any other long-term protection against this, and I didn't trust further Labour-LD governments not to bounce it.
The minor concessions that Cameron delivered weren't enough to convince me our long-term future was secure, and I knew another vote was decades away if we voted Remain. So I voted to Leave.
That's their failure, not mine.
What irks me is Americans or people from other non EU countries who would never in a million years vote for the US to be subsumed into some other nation state have a go at Brexit. Europeans who are heading in that direction may not like that we've jumped off their train but people not from an EU country that would never vote for their country to become a mere state in a larger country can get fucked.
If they manage it, their opponents will simply disregard the achievement: general elections aren't single issue votes, regardless of whether or not one party insists that they are. But if they fail, then what?
Because that is what they dream of.
Go Canada!
However, I don’t think the key sovereign states want a fully fledged super state, nor do the various publics, and additionally if the UK were (back) in the EU it would be our responsibility to work with like-minded allies to find an alternative teleology for some or all EU states.
It is at this point that Eurosceptics say, “we tried and they ignored us” or some such, but I don’t think the UK ever put real diplomatic heft into Europe, or let’s say, only enough to deliver the single market, quash the social market, and bring about eastern european enlargement. But the game changed after Lisbon.
Cameron’s whistle-stop “negotiation” was A case study in how not to do statecraft.
Canada
Penalty saved!
Would have been Canada’s first ever world cup goal
England, France and Spain have all started very well - it looks to me as though an England-France quarter final is a possibility.
As for referenda, the closest I can recall was the 1997 Welsh devolution which was something like 50.3% Yes and 49.7% No. I know there has been an "Abolish the Assembly" party in Wales and it had seats in the Senedd though lost them at the last election.
You'd think with 49.7% having voted No, there'd be a huge call for another vote but it seems not.
To their credit and despite having opposed it, the Conservatives have never publicly called for the abolition of the Mayor of London and the GLA or a second referendum but, as with AV, the result was so comprehensive as to put an end to any doubt.
Some referenda put an end to questions, some do not.
I can think of many esteemed posters on here who never even vaguely considered it before 2009, and - although they thought it could conceivably come to that - right up until Feb 2016 were hoping for a decent renegotiation, and only jumped in the final few months.
They often get abused for their vote. Few seek to understand and address it.
And while I don't necessarily believe in the UK in the same way that, say @HYUFD does - I don't have some principled desire for my kids to grow up, specifically, in the UK - I do believe in democracy, and a vaguely defined sort of common law freedom, which I see the UK as better able to deliver than a USE. It comes back to the rather late-medeival concept of an attachment to ones own laws and customs (which, I would note, is why Scotland remained Scotland rather than North Greag Britain, despite the act of Union.)
I don't believe a USD can ever be a properly functioning democracy because of the language issue. A polity needs, in my view, a common language.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1595423616924950529/photo/1
The Social Democrat/Centre Party coalition has lost half its support while the Conservatives are up 13 points on their 2021 result and would be back with a landslide.
Further south, the Danish government formation talks are continuing. Four parties, two from the further left and two from the further right, have dropped out leaving the Social Democrats, Venstre, the Moderates and the other parties still in talks around a broad-based centrist Government.
Watched a lot of their qualifiers. They are competent, well organised and quick.
The EU - like, say, Housing or Transport, or Scotland, or Culture, has been second-order issue for British administrations.
It worked until it stopped working.