It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
My order:
1) England 2) Minnows 3) Anyone else
Any team playing with flair or sportsmanship can get elevated.
Any team playing boring or with gamesmanship gets relegated.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Can't bind future parliaments in UK or rUK - still less Scotland. It would not be, after all, an international treaty - because that would prejudge the situation.
I wasn't talking about it "binding future parliaments", as well you know.
But rehearsing all the issues that would be impacted would not make those issues go away, even if there were changes in Government.
It is very telling that there is a huge reluctance to address these practical issues as part of the debate. Almost as if Scotland never expects independence never to actually happen. Especially if these issues are comprehensively aired.
Like Labour's policies in goverment, which are being kept for the election campaign, they will wait for the actual referendum campaign, which may be some years ahead. There's been plenty of debate and discussion already as you know perfectly well.
You can't refuse a referendum and simultaneously expect a referendum campaign.
Again, deliberately missing the point.
You can have a forensic examination of all the issues that would be in play IF there is a referendum.
But the SNP of course don't want that. Whilst simultaneously saying Brexit was a fiasco because the consequences were not properly explored ahead of the vote.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
The suggestion is that the deal would have been done, although that would still have led to three options - Remain, Leave with the deal, Leave with no deal.
At the very least there should have been a decision made on EEA in/out as well as Leave/Remain.
Except that would have fallen foul of two massive delusions that continue to underpin the whole Brexit thing.
The big one was that, somewhere under the counter, there was a perfect way that the UK could engage with the EU that gave us all the benefits we wanted but none of the downsides. Not involved in the politics, still having a fittingly substantial democratic say. Freedom of movement reformed have the potential to effectively only work one way.
We're still seeing that now- look at that poll mentioned here yesterday, that shows a very popular option is a wholly new kind of relationship than nobody can actually describe but sounds a lot like cake and eat it.
Linked to that was the idea that the Negotiation was the important thing. All the UK had to do was show some pluck and keep asking in a suitably steely way. That in the meantime, we had to keep our cards (all the many cards we held) close to our chest. So we couldn't discuss what we wanted and what we didn't want because those darstadly continentals would overhear.
Any concrete Brexit turns out to have downsides. That's not because of Brexit, it's because any concrete anything turns out to have downsides. That's why Cummings went to such trouble to make sure that Vote Leave didn't talk about them.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
The suggestion is that the deal would have been done, although that would still have led to three options - Remain, Leave with the deal, Leave with no deal.
At the very least there should have been a decision made on EEA in/out as well as Leave/Remain.
Except that would have fallen foul of two massive delusions that continue to underpin the whole Brexit thing.
The big one was that, somewhere under the counter, there was a perfect way that the UK could engage with the EU that gave us all the benefits we wanted but none of the downsides. Not involved in the politics, still having a fittingly substantial democratic say. Freedom of movement reformed have the potential to effectively only work one way.
We're still seeing that now- look at that poll mentioned here yesterday, that shows a very popular option is a wholly new kind of relationship than nobody can actually describe but sounds a lot like cake and eat it.
Linked to that was the idea that the Negotiation was the important thing. All the UK had to do was show some pluck and keep asking in a suitably steely way. That in the meantime, we had to keep our cards (all the many cards we held) close to our chest. So we couldn't discuss what we wanted and what we didn't want because those darstadly continentals would overhear.
Any concrete Brexit turns out to have downsides. That's not because of Brexit, it's because any concrete anything turns out to have downsides. That's why Cummings went to such trouble to make sure that Vote Leave didn't talk about them.
Remain had downsides too, given that the status quo wasn't a sustainable position in the long term with the way the EU has been, and still is, moving.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
Every flavour of Brexit rolled into one scraped by by under 4%.
It is fairly self-evident that had there been any attempt to define Brexit, it would have lost. Leavers are still fighting like cats in a sack over it several years on - look at what happened just last week when the pro-Brexit PM suggested a Swiss-style Brexit.
It's not the fault of the leavers, it was the fault of Cameron and it was not just an "error" it was a monumental cock-up.
If we win tonight we finish top. I am assuming if teams have level points its base on head to head so Iran couldn't get past us on that scenario. Handy for (potential) planning for knock out games.
If we win tonight we finish top. I am assuming if teams have level points its base on head to head so Iran couldn't get past us on that scenario. Handy for (potential) planning for knock out games.
If we win tonight we finish top. I am assuming if teams have level points its base on head to head so Iran couldn't get past us on that scenario. Handy for (potential) planning for knock out games.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
Every flavour of Brexit rolled into one scraped by by under 4%.
Against, as I said, a Remain campaign that deployed the "you don't know what Leave means" argument as part of its Project Fear.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Can't bind future parliaments in UK or rUK - still less Scotland. It would not be, after all, an international treaty - because that would prejudge the situation.
I wasn't talking about it "binding future parliaments", as well you know.
But rehearsing all the issues that would be impacted would not make those issues go away, even if there were changes in Government.
It is very telling that there is a huge reluctance to address these practical issues as part of the debate. Almost as if Scotland never expects independence never to actually happen. Especially if these issues are comprehensively aired.
Like Labour's policies in goverment, which are being kept for the election campaign, they will wait for the actual referendum campaign, which may be some years ahead. There's been plenty of debate and discussion already as you know perfectly well.
You can't refuse a referendum and simultaneously expect a referendum campaign.
Again, deliberately missing the point.
You can have a forensic examination of all the issues that would be in play IF there is a referendum.
But the SNP of course don't want that. Whilst simultaneously saying Brexit was a fiasco because the consequences were not properly explored ahead of the vote.
In practical political terms, outside the nerd bubble, nobody's goping to spend time on a debate which might well look very different in two years' time, given how quickly things are moving more generally within the UK. It's like expecting Mr Starmer to say exactly what he'll do in two years.
If we win tonight we finish top. I am assuming if teams have level points its base on head to head so Iran couldn't get past us on that scenario. Handy for (potential) planning for knock out games.
It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
My list is rather Quixotic:
Scotland England Wales/Ireland/N Ireland Germany Other European Brazil Plucky minnows The rest Argentina probably last - I just don't like their win at all costs attitude.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
The suggestion is that the deal would have been done, although that would still have led to three options - Remain, Leave with the deal, Leave with no deal.
At the very least there should have been a decision made on EEA in/out as well as Leave/Remain.
Except that would have fallen foul of two massive delusions that continue to underpin the whole Brexit thing.
The big one was that, somewhere under the counter, there was a perfect way that the UK could engage with the EU that gave us all the benefits we wanted but none of the downsides. Not involved in the politics, still having a fittingly substantial democratic say. Freedom of movement reformed have the potential to effectively only work one way.
We're still seeing that now- look at that poll mentioned here yesterday, that shows a very popular option is a wholly new kind of relationship than nobody can actually describe but sounds a lot like cake and eat it.
Linked to that was the idea that the Negotiation was the important thing. All the UK had to do was show some pluck and keep asking in a suitably steely way. That in the meantime, we had to keep our cards (all the many cards we held) close to our chest. So we couldn't discuss what we wanted and what we didn't want because those darstadly continentals would overhear.
Any concrete Brexit turns out to have downsides. That's not because of Brexit, it's because any concrete anything turns out to have downsides. That's why Cummings went to such trouble to make sure that Vote Leave didn't talk about them.
Remain had downsides too, given that the status quo wasn't a sustainable position in the long term with the way the EU has been, and still is, moving.
Curiously, I never noticed a single downside when we were members of the EU. I'm noticing quite a few downsides now though.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
Every flavour of Brexit rolled into one scraped by by under 4%.
Against, as I said, a Remain campaign that deployed the "you don't know what Leave means" argument as part of its Project Fear.
Out of curiousity could the UK legislate (S30 I think) for a referendum if the scots parliament didn't want one?
S30 would hand the power to the Scottish Parliament to hold one within a defined time frame (say by end-2023) - so if they didn’t want to hold it they’d just do nothing.
On the other hand, as it’s a reserved matter I don’t see why legally Westminster couldn’t hold a referendum in Scotland - as it’s within their competence. The politics might not be quite so straight forward….
So for example a labour party needing scottish votes for a GE could put in their national manifesto....we will hold a referendum on scottish independence in the next parliament in the hope that no would still win much like cameron did with the eu referendum
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
Yes. It displays a lack of understanding if it's a sincerely held view or a touch of gaslighting if not. I'm afraid for all its limitations a binary Leave v Remain was the only way to do the vote. Ditto with Sindy2 if and when it happens.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
I don't think a multiple choice referendum would ever have been widely accepted. Would you not find it unfair if Indy was split up into 'indy with no hard border, indy but keeping Eastenders, indy with a currency union, full balls out indy with a new currency etc etc., and only the vote total of one of them was expected to be higher than remain?
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
Yep, binary is the way. As for defining the Leave option on the ballot to be "EEA for 5 years and after this it all depends on what a Royal Commission says" - we need a word for something that sounds superficially sensible but in practice has almost no possibility of happening. Being serious here - we do need a word for that. It's a precise thing, crops up a lot, and I don't think there is a bespoke word for it. My "not happening event" is too clunky.
Is 'impossible shite' short enough?
It's good - very good - but we really do need a nifty single word.
If we win tonight we finish top. I am assuming if teams have level points its base on head to head so Iran couldn't get past us on that scenario. Handy for (potential) planning for knock out games.
And we could let Wales beat us so perhaps both home nations go through.
A thoroughly deserved win for Iran . Wales were dreadful and Bale and Ramsey the two star names were invisible. Hopefully Iran can get the result they need against the USA and qualify for the knock out stages .
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
I don't think a multiple choice referendum would ever have been widely accepted. Would you not find it unfair if Indy was split up into 'indy with no hard border, indy but keeping Eastenders, indy with a currency union, full balls out indy with a new currency etc etc., and only the vote total of one of them was expected to be higher than remain?
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
Yep, binary is the way. As for defining the Leave option on the ballot to be "EEA for 5 years and after this it all depends on what a Royal Commission says" - we need a word for something that sounds superficially sensible but in practice has almost no possibility of happening. Being serious here - we do need a word for that. It's a precise thing, crops up a lot, and I don't think there is a bespoke word for it. My "not happening event" is too clunky.
Is 'impossible shite' short enough?
It's good - very good - but we really do need a nifty single word.
Fatberg? Designed to block things with a large greasy mass of all sorts of rubbish.
(Since I know almost nothing about the sport, that seems as good a way to choose a favorite as any. And I appreciate the name because choosing names for women's teams is often so hard in the US. Real example: Lady Gamecocks. And there are others just as bad. A few obvious ones work, for exmple Wyoming's Cowboys and Cowgirls, but most don't.)
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
As in “Should Scotland Leave the United Kingdom”
Yep that's a fair enough comparison. That will be act of faith too and not all those voting for it will have a common understanding of what it means. It'd be a bit less fuzzy though imo - since it's about creating a new sovereign nation.
Out of curiousity could the UK legislate (S30 I think) for a referendum if the scots parliament didn't want one?
S30 would hand the power to the Scottish Parliament to hold one within a defined time frame (say by end-2023) - so if they didn’t want to hold it they’d just do nothing.
On the other hand, as it’s a reserved matter I don’t see why legally Westminster couldn’t hold a referendum in Scotland - as it’s within their competence. The politics might not be quite so straight forward….
So for example a labour party needing scottish votes for a GE could put in their national manifesto....we will hold a referendum on scottish independence in the next parliament in the hope that no would still win much like cameron did with the eu referendum
Yes - that could do it - not that the SNP will be ready:
An FOI request has revealed that Scot Gov didn’t even discuss, let alone model, increased transaction costs due to Scotland having a new currency.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
I don't think a multiple choice referendum would ever have been widely accepted. Would you not find it unfair if Indy was split up into 'indy with no hard border, indy but keeping Eastenders, indy with a currency union, full balls out indy with a new currency etc etc., and only the vote total of one of them was expected to be higher than remain?
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
Yep, binary is the way. As for defining the Leave option on the ballot to be "EEA for 5 years and after this it all depends on what a Royal Commission says" - we need a word for something that sounds superficially sensible but in practice has almost no possibility of happening. Being serious here - we do need a word for that. It's a precise thing, crops up a lot, and I don't think there is a bespoke word for it. My "not happening event" is too clunky.
Is 'impossible shite' short enough?
It's good - very good - but we really do need a nifty single word.
Fatberg? Designed to block things with a large greasy mass of all sorts of rubbish.
If we win tonight we finish top. I am assuming if teams have level points its base on head to head so Iran couldn't get past us on that scenario. Handy for (potential) planning for knock out games.
And we could let Wales beat us so perhaps both home nations go through.
If teams are level on points it's based on goal difference, then goals scored.
Qatar is behaving like someone who wanted a dog to be able to post about it on the internet, and didn't appreciate it would involve taking it for walks on rainy evenings and picking its shit up.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
A PM and government committed to Remain putting serious effort into shaping what Leave would mean before the vote even took place? C'mon. Fantasy Island.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Can't bind future parliaments in UK or rUK - still less Scotland. It would not be, after all, an international treaty - because that would prejudge the situation.
I wasn't talking about it "binding future parliaments", as well you know.
But rehearsing all the issues that would be impacted would not make those issues go away, even if there were changes in Government.
It is very telling that there is a huge reluctance to address these practical issues as part of the debate. Almost as if Scotland never expects independence never to actually happen. Especially if these issues are comprehensively aired.
Like Labour's policies in goverment, which are being kept for the election campaign, they will wait for the actual referendum campaign, which may be some years ahead. There's been plenty of debate and discussion already as you know perfectly well.
You can't refuse a referendum and simultaneously expect a referendum campaign.
Again, deliberately missing the point.
You can have a forensic examination of all the issues that would be in play IF there is a referendum.
But the SNP of course don't want that. Whilst simultaneously saying Brexit was a fiasco because the consequences were not properly explored ahead of the vote.
In practical political terms, outside the nerd bubble, nobody's goping to spend time on a debate which might well look very different in two years' time, given how quickly things are moving more generally within the UK. It's like expecting Mr Starmer to say exactly what he'll do in two years.
The matter of indyref2 will of course almost certainly now be down to Mr Starmer given the SC confirming this Tory government can continue to refuse an independence referendum indefinitely.
So if there is to be an indyref2 it will be Labour that decides to grant it, Labour that will then largely have to win it.
The Tories would of course back the union still and PM Starmer in his campaign, likely including devomax etc. However if lost the Tories would switch overnight to being an English Nationalist party and taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in any Scexit talks
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
Yes. It displays a lack of understanding if it's a sincerely held view or a touch of gaslighting if not. I'm afraid for all its limitations a binary Leave v Remain was the only way to do the vote. Ditto with Sindy2 if and when it happens.
The reasons for specifying Leave in advance were, first, it would get the Leave side to think hard and agree a position; second, it would mean there was an agreed position in the event that Leave won. As it was, we have had Theresa May winging it, followed by Boris winging it, and we still do not know where we want to end up. That is also why we could (and probably should) have had a confirmatory referendum after a deal was agreed.
He should have been subbed today. He was just carried through this game.
But Wales couldn't consistently string three passes together. Just not good enough at a World tournament.
The next world cup adds a further 12 teams.
Wales are a poor side internationally as are others who qualified.
I cannot see how adding a further 12 teams of a lower standard will do anything to enhance the world cup.
One of the few things which are right with the World Cup is the format: 32 teams, reducing to 16 for the knockout. The right balance between seeing unexpected teams and getting there not being a given for a decent side. It makes the group matches meaningful. 48 teams reducing to 32 for the knockout stages is just daft. Typical football 'football is good, therefore more football is better' thinking.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
As in “Should Scotland Leave the United Kingdom”
Yep that's a fair enough comparison. That will be act of faith too and not all those voting for it will have a common understanding of what it means. It'd be a bit less fuzzy though imo - since it's about creating a new sovereign nation.
Recreating, please ... which is actually a key element, given the boundaries, laws, etc.
It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
My order:
1) England 2) Minnows 3) Anyone else
Any team playing with flair or sportsmanship can get elevated.
Any team playing boring or with gamesmanship gets relegated.
To be clear, my ranking of 8/9/10 is based on the extent to which they cheat. I rank teams which pretend to be hurt worse than teams which fly in with 'exuberant' tackles.
Governments become more unpopular the longer they are in power - and Sunak’s absolute -8 is clearly very poor - but is also an upgrade vs both his predecessors - which is at least a step in the right direction.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
Yes. It displays a lack of understanding if it's a sincerely held view or a touch of gaslighting if not. I'm afraid for all its limitations a binary Leave v Remain was the only way to do the vote. Ditto with Sindy2 if and when it happens.
The reasons for specifying Leave in advance were, first, it would get the Leave side to think hard and agree a position; second, it would mean there was an agreed position in the event that Leave won. As it was, we have had Theresa May winging it, followed by Boris winging it, and we still do not know where we want to end up. That is also why we could (and probably should) have had a confirmatory referendum after a deal was agreed.
There is a flaw in that confirmatory referendum, the EU would not negotiate a deal till after article 50 was invoked. It is therefore a bit late for a confirmatory referendum. A no vote would have resulted most likely in either a) an outright refusal for us to revoke article 50 from the EU or b) a yes you can revoke but only if you agree to Schengen, euro and lose the rebate
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
A PM and government committed to Remain putting serious effort into shaping what Leave would mean before the vote even took place? C'mon. Fantasy Island.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
But had Cammo taken it seriously, he would have put the Leave side into some sort of Commission to work up a Brexit 'proposition', with a promise of a referendum after once they'd reached agreement and met their terms of reference.
Instead he thought he could stroll to an easy win by leading the campaign himself...
Whilst I obviously support England in preference, as a good Aberystwyth graduate I really wanted Wales to win.
But I can't see them doing anything other than draw now. They really aren't very good. Five minutes (plus two hours added time) to try and get a win.........
Why were they throwing away a powerful point chasing a win? There was outside chance of 5 points, not unrealistic chance of 3, or even qualifying with 2 if they didn’t lose this match - they threw that away taking off defensive screen for playmaking midfielder in the 75th minute.
Wales were stupid to go so gung ho for the win. Rather than gung ho for win, a draw here would have started Wales second in group going into last match - where either a win draw or even defeat could have taken them into last 16. They didn’t back themselves to do anything against England? Even if England beat them, there was the insurance possibility of two points very possibly taking them through.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
As in “Should Scotland Leave the United Kingdom”
Yep that's a fair enough comparison. That will be act of faith too and not all those voting for it will have a common understanding of what it means. It'd be a bit less fuzzy though imo - since it's about creating a new sovereign nation.
Recreating, please ... which is actually a key element, given the boundaries, laws, etc.
I know - but it's been a while. It's going to look new.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
Not just that.
Imagine, for a moment, that the Cameron government had sought to define what Leave would look like. How would the various Leave campaigns have responded? Pound to a eurocent says "Cameron's weak, of course we will be able to get a better deal than that". We know this because they spent most of 2016-9 saying that.
It may well be a consistent view among Leave voters that Cameron ought to have defined what Leave meant in advance, despite not believing in it. That says more about the people holding that view than the view itself.
Yes. It displays a lack of understanding if it's a sincerely held view or a touch of gaslighting if not. I'm afraid for all its limitations a binary Leave v Remain was the only way to do the vote. Ditto with Sindy2 if and when it happens.
The reasons for specifying Leave in advance were, first, it would get the Leave side to think hard and agree a position; second, it would mean there was an agreed position in the event that Leave won. As it was, we have had Theresa May winging it, followed by Boris winging it, and we still do not know where we want to end up. That is also why we could (and probably should) have had a confirmatory referendum after a deal was agreed.
Oh indeed it made perfect sense. I wish we had a politics that could handle things in such a way.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
A PM and government committed to Remain putting serious effort into shaping what Leave would mean before the vote even took place? C'mon. Fantasy Island.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
But had Cammo taken it seriously, he would have put the Leave side into some sort of Commission to work up a Brexit 'proposition', with a promise of a referendum after once they'd reached agreement and met their terms of reference.
Instead he thought he could stroll to an easy win by leading the campaign himself...
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
No 10 confirms a third complaint has been received against Raab
How long before Raab stands down ?
Braverman next out layers looking good now I think.
I’ve got Gove as next out.
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
If we played as a UK team would Bale be the only non-English team member?
Bale wouldn't be in the team, doubt even the squad. Andy Robertson would get in at left wing back. I actually not sure any other players would even get in the squad on current form (there are players with potential and talent but having poor seasons).
Disappointed for Wales but I admire the bravery of the Iranian players.
“admire the bravery of the Iranian players”
I don’t think much of their dirty play and gamesmanship.
I didn't watch the game but their refusal to sing the anthem against England and the captain publicly highlighting the abuses at home were very significant.
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
The Edinburgh Agreement preceeded the "once in a generation chance/opportunity" comment in the white paper, relied on by so many PBers, by 14 months.
I am still trying to work out how the ref didn't think that was initially a red card. Manu Tuilagi would be a proud of a hit like that at the weekend on a Saffer player.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
A PM and government committed to Remain putting serious effort into shaping what Leave would mean before the vote even took place? C'mon. Fantasy Island.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
The PM sets up a commision with the remit, how gto and what type of leave (there was no "Brexit" back then). Independent of the PM, who dioes not sit on the committee. Until this has been agreed and signed by the committee there is no Referendum.
It's not fantasy Island, because that is what John Howard did.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
If we played as a UK team would Bale be the only non-English team member?
Bale wouldn't be in the team, doubt even the squad. Andy Robertson would get in at left wing back. I actually not sure any other players would even get in the squad on current form (there are players with potential and talent but having poor seasons).
Andy Robertson would definitely be first choice left-back. No one in the England squad as good as he is down that side.
It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
My list is rather Quixotic:
Scotland England Wales/Ireland/N Ireland Germany Other European Brazil Plucky minnows The rest Argentina probably last - I just don't like their win at all costs attitude.
International: Ireland Belgique (coz I lived there as a kid and I saw them beat Norway in my first ever live international game) Côte d'Ivoire Reggae Boiz
Clubs: Leeds Olympique de Marseille (soft spot for Celtic, AEK Athens and Livorno - the other teams of 'The Brotherhood')
Robbie Savage has been ridiculed for claiming he 'could still play against Iran and win'
Anybody would think he was the Gareth Bale of his day....Martin O'Neill famously had a total meltdown during a half time as manager of Leicester, the reason people had actually been passing the ball to Savage....
If we played as a UK team would Bale be the only non-English team member?
Bale wouldn't be in the team, doubt even the squad. Andy Robertson would get in at left wing back. I actually not sure any other players would even get in the squad on current form (there are players with potential and talent but having poor seasons).
Andy Robertson would definitely be first choice left-back. No one in the England squad as good as he is down that side.
Comments
1) England
2) Minnows
3) Anyone else
Any team playing with flair or sportsmanship can get elevated.
Any team playing boring or with gamesmanship gets relegated.
You can have a forensic examination of all the issues that would be in play IF there is a referendum.
But the SNP of course don't want that. Whilst simultaneously saying Brexit was a fiasco because the consequences were not properly explored ahead of the vote.
Makes 4 of the 6 LCFC players getting a game so far.
The big one was that, somewhere under the counter, there was a perfect way that the UK could engage with the EU that gave us all the benefits we wanted but none of the downsides. Not involved in the politics, still having a fittingly substantial democratic say. Freedom of movement reformed have the potential to effectively only work one way.
We're still seeing that now- look at that poll mentioned here yesterday, that shows a very popular option is a wholly new kind of relationship than nobody can actually describe but sounds a lot like cake and eat it.
Linked to that was the idea that the Negotiation was the important thing. All the UK had to do was show some pluck and keep asking in a suitably steely way. That in the meantime, we had to keep our cards (all the many cards we held) close to our chest. So we couldn't discuss what we wanted and what we didn't want because those darstadly continentals would overhear.
Any concrete Brexit turns out to have downsides. That's not because of Brexit, it's because any concrete anything turns out to have downsides. That's why Cummings went to such trouble to make sure that Vote Leave didn't talk about them.
They're goin' home
They're goin'
The Welsh are goin' home.....
Which is never a good Welsh team for England to be playing.
It is fairly self-evident that had there been any attempt to define Brexit, it would have lost. Leavers are still fighting like cats in a sack over it several years on - look at what happened just last week when the pro-Brexit PM suggested a Swiss-style Brexit.
It's not the fault of the leavers, it was the fault of Cameron and it was not just an "error" it was a monumental cock-up.
Either is looking good for us quite honestly.
Or, more seasonally, he's really a Noel?
Scotland
England
Wales/Ireland/N Ireland
Germany
Other European
Brazil
Plucky minnows
The rest
Argentina probably last - I just don't like their win at all costs attitude.
Table would be
Eng 6 pt +5 GD (Or better)
Iran 3 pt -2 GD
USA 1 pt -1 GD (Or worse)
Wales 1 pt -2 GD
Iran are -2, so it'd need something truly spectacular from Iran AND Wales in their final match for us not to finish top.
But Wales couldn't consistently string three passes together. Just not good enough at a World tournament.
Wales are a poor side internationally as are others who qualified.
I cannot see how adding a further 12 teams of a lower standard will do anything to enhance the world cup.
(Since I know almost nothing about the sport, that seems as good a way to choose a favorite as any. And I appreciate the name because choosing names for women's teams is often so hard in the US. Real example: Lady Gamecocks. And there are others just as bad. A few obvious ones work, for exmple Wyoming's Cowboys and Cowgirls, but most don't.)
An FOI request has revealed that Scot Gov didn’t even discuss, let alone model, increased transaction costs due to Scotland having a new currency.
Sturgeon’s dismissive attitude to
@Mike_Blackley’s questions here now looks even worse than it did at the time.
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1596113889225281539
Oh, I see.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/fifa-world-cup/what-england-fans-have-now-been-banned-from-doing-as-qatari-cops-enforce-world-cup-clamp-down/ar-AA14xUuy?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=2b330b31835d46d087ae789abc9fc054
Qatar is behaving like someone who wanted a dog to be able to post about it on the internet, and didn't appreciate it would involve taking it for walks on rainy evenings and picking its shit up.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
So if there is to be an indyref2 it will be Labour that decides to grant it, Labour that will then largely have to win it.
The Tories would of course back the union still and PM Starmer in his campaign, likely including devomax etc. However if lost the Tories would switch overnight to being an English Nationalist party and taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in any Scexit talks
48 teams reducing to 32 for the knockout stages is just daft. Typical football 'football is good, therefore more football is better' thinking.
How long before Raab stands down ?
https://unherd.com/2022/11/how-britain-became-an-american-colony/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=0516d96b25&mc_eid=836634e34b
I rank teams which pretend to be hurt worse than teams which fly in with 'exuberant' tackles.
Tony Blair +65
Theresa May +35
David Cameron +31
Gordon Brown +20
John Major +15
Margaret Thatcher +2
Rishi Sunak -8 👈
Boris Johnson -18
Liz Truss -51
Ipsos-MORI
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1596078593175691264
What’s also interesting is how they compare with the previous PM’s rating
Major: +13
Blair: +50
Brown: -45
Cameron: +11
May: +4
Johnson: -53
Truss: -33
Sunak: +43
Governments become more unpopular the longer they are in power - and Sunak’s absolute -8 is clearly very poor - but is also an upgrade vs both his predecessors - which is at least a step in the right direction.
'Christ, what's that smell?'
'That old loon pounding away at his laptop and several phones over there has discovered that aliens are actually pretty anti woke..'
Instead he thought he could stroll to an easy win by leading the campaign himself...
Wales were stupid to go so gung ho for the win. Rather than gung ho for win, a draw here would have started Wales second in group going into last match - where either a win draw or even defeat could have taken them into last 16. They didn’t back themselves to do anything against England? Even if England beat them, there was the insurance possibility of two points very possibly taking them through.
This is what hiring A players looks like.
This is what interviewing should look like
This is fun.
https://twitter.com/codeanand/status/1595799776234471427
https://www.newsweek.com/merkels-murky-legacy-germany-opinion-1761146
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
I don’t think much of their dirty play and gamesmanship.
It's not fantasy Island, because that is what John Howard did.
Ireland
Belgique (coz I lived there as a kid and I saw them beat Norway in my first ever live international game)
Côte d'Ivoire
Reggae Boiz
Clubs:
Leeds
Olympique de Marseille
(soft spot for Celtic, AEK Athens and Livorno - the other teams of 'The Brotherhood')
Hockey:
CSKA Moscow
That's all I've got time for.
Anybody would think he was the Gareth Bale of his day....Martin O'Neill famously had a total meltdown during a half time as manager of Leicester, the reason people had actually been passing the ball to Savage....