I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Penny Mordaunt has written quite an interesting piece on Con Home about dystopian Britain we would now be experiencing had the country voted for Ed Miliband in 2015.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
There’s a puppyish earnestness in there which is not unappealing but overall it’s shocking that he’s supposed to be the First Lord of the Admiralty.
When TM became PM, she had done nearly 20 years as an MP, a couple of unsuccessful parliamentary elections and eight years as a London borough councillor. She may never have got beyond introverted, but she was an experienced high-functioning introvert. Clunky but basically competent at talking to voters.
Rishi went straight into a safe seat and entered parliament less than eight years ago. Even if he were brilliant, he'd still be inexperienced.
Penny Mordaunt has written quite an interesting piece on Con Home about dystopian Britain we would now be experiencing had the country voted for Ed Miliband in 2015.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
The other thing where the LD leadership shot themselves in the foot this year in terms of getting media attention was by cancelling their conference at the last minute.
Do you seriously think, given everything else going on at the time, anyone would have been interested in the pontifications of the LDs or indeed any political party?
Of course - millions of people were bored out of their skulls while others were obsessing about live-streaming a queue in central London.
That's one perspective - the problem is even if you're right the media were obsessed on one story and nothing the LDs said or did at their Conference would have made an impact - unless they passed a resolution supporting a Republic but the kind of Party members who wanted that kind of thing had long since defected to the Conservatives.
They cancelled it because they were afraid of bad press. They should be welcoming any kind of coverage, even if it is Laurence Fox having a meltdown on Twitter.
I'm not sure that's true - the reason for cancelling the Conference. As for all publicity being good publicity, I refer you to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng who had plenty of publicity much good it did them.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Yes, I resisted it for some time. My son persuaded me that it was both easier and safer to have your card on the phone. He was right.
Penny Mordaunt has written quite an interesting piece on Con Home about dystopian Britain we would now be experiencing had the country voted for Ed Miliband in 2015.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
In fact it is a myth that cash was introduced to replace barter - there's no evidence of barter's being the primary means of exchange in societies with recorded history, outside wartime and such. Perhaps because as soon as you have a historical record, you can extend credit to people.
1. I said to regulate not to replace. 2. It is true there is now a widely accepted archaeological theory that the introduction of cash in pre-Invasion Iron age communities across Europe was not for the use it had assumed in the Roman Empire but was instead copying the idea of coinage but without its actually use in trade. This is based on the fact that coinage in pre-Roman IA sites is almost exclusively found in hoards associated with religious and tribal sites rather than as individual coins in association with habitation.
But the earliest coinage in the world didn't appear until about 9000 years after the establishment of trade by barter. Clearly someone saw the benefit of regulated trade and the use of coinage, once it had been invented, quickly became widespread for that reason (amongst others).
Had some nice food. Roaring log fire. Die Hard in 4k Uktra & Dolby Atmos.
Must be Christmas.
Stuck in hospital waiting for drugs for the wife to come home. Told she could leave at 10.30. Still here, drugs need collecting from the in house pharmacy. Very annoyed.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Yes, I resisted it for some time. My son persuaded me that it was both easier and safer to have your card on the phone. He was right.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
“Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks”
Would you like to clarify your own position CR? Do you believe Transwomen are men? that it is not possible for someone who is male to become female? That personally you wouldn’t recognise them as female even if they held a legally binding, Gender Recognition Certificate government-issued by the current Conservative government?
Does Sunak and his ministers really want to be asked these questions every time they sit down for an interview?
No, I don't believe Transwomen are men. I might treat someone who'd medically transitioned from female to male as all intents and purposes as the same as a man but that still wouldn't make them a biological man.
And my position really didn't need "clarifying" it's been clear for years - as you knew perfectly well.
Your final question is interesting, though, it intimates that the point of such questioning isn't really to illicit a genuine response (and you already knew mine) it's to try to flush out the 'wrong' answer so such people can be beaten with the stick of transphobia repeatedly.
Yes to the final paragraph, we are in agreement on that one. What are the media and opponent politicians like 😧
Yet you are urging Sunak to rush headlong into that? Thinking he’ll come out the winner, not Reform? You may need to rethink that strategy.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
No way.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
No, I think that's unnecessary exclusive and legitimises it.
Cash should be a right.
One of the things about the US which impresses me is the restless innovation.
I’m just talking for the moment about consumer-facing products and services, but I believe it to be a general truth.
Insisting that businesses handle cash seems like one of the trifling regulations that sound reasonable in isolation but end up blocking British businesses off whole nascent industries. The Americans seem to get around this stuff more easily.
Had some nice food. Roaring log fire. Die Hard in 4k Uktra & Dolby Atmos.
Must be Christmas.
Stuck in hospital waiting for drugs for the wife to come home. Told she could leave at 10.30. Still here, drugs need collecting from the in house pharmacy. Very annoyed.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Dont - If you lose your phone , how will you ring to stop your card? If you lose your card you can always ring up immediately .
Thought I should do my homework on the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill. On the whole it looks like a process change so that trans people can officially change their gender on how they self-identify, rather than have to go through a humiliating psychiatric investigation. As such it brings Scotland in line with best practice that is being brought into place in Italy, France, Germany, Canada etc. It is also fundamentally a humane piece of legislation, which is why I think it gets broad support across parties in Scotland.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all. The subtext of her argument, I think, is that discrimination against trans people is actually fine, but she's not prepared to say so openly.
On topic, if Labour get 30% of the vote in the next GE, they will be in the territory of taking significant numbers of seats off the SNP.
Rowling took a long time to clarify what her position is. But it is very clear now. She believes trans activism wants to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with “gender” - in that Rowling defines it pretty well actually, trans activism does want that, with the alternative argument where you have to be male or female creates a hostile environment for trans, so the aim is change the legal definition to gender to remove the hostile environment for trans people.
At the heart of Rowlings argument is laws which certify gender identity on the basis of self-identification alone will have the result of endangering women and girls by legally entitling individuals who were assigned as male at birth to access "women-only" spaces such as public bathrooms. It’s definitely time to ask Sunak and his government to explain themselves and make their own opinions crystal clear - are they are fellow travellers with Rowlings argument, because at the moment the law in England not just Scotland takes a dim view of practicing and encouraging “absolutism” in public and the work place, on the basis it creates hostile environment for Trans people.
Those who think the boot is on the other foot and it’s time for Tory’s to go on the attack on this need to remember how this plays in the courts already, and how it went down in the big Tory leadership election back in the summer - correct me where wrong, but after some brief skirmish at the start, they all decided to shut up about it. Rather than hurting Labour, this government clarifying questions such as, do you believe Transwomen are men? is it not possible for someone who is male to become female? That personally you wouldn’t recognise them as female even if they held a legally binding Gender Recognition Certificate government-issued by the current Conservative government, is likely to make the government look no different than SNP and Labour with their answers on this, the big winners being big chunk of voters Reform will get from the Tories.
Did you read the article? The Telegraph is “revealing” something that SKS said to PinkNews last year.
Pink News are hardly whiter than white in their coverage of the greyness of Trans debate - they are biased!
“The revised PinkNews article no longer contains the statement “it is incorrect to claim that a man ‘who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones’ can ‘be a woman in the sight of the law,’ as JK Rowling claimed.”
My reading of the politics. Scotland diverging by making this change has certainly changed the game now, it has actually hit the ball into the Tories court somewhat and will certainly lead to media turning up the pressure on the government, and put them on the spot to clarify their “anti-woke” position and stand up for it.
The reason why I say the woke stuff is difficult for the Tories, newspapers don’t have to clarify and defend a position, but politicians do. And just like the knots JK Rowling tied herself into trying to explain her views are not transphobic, Tory government position on this is also stronger one when it is not clarified, and they can get away with not answering questions.
Questions like, For example, Are they with the “absolutists” view on this - that there are only two sexes, you are either male or female, and the law should reflect this? I’m no more woke than King Knut to say that position is patent nonsense, because there is a sex spectrum law needs to recognise isn’t there? How do the Tories or anyone clarify and justify an absolutist position into law that will not be creating a hostile environment for all trans people - when it plainly does? Another example is, when clarified, it’s not that easy at all for anyone to get a GRC, it’s been disingenuous so far to imply it’s easy and omitting to add it’s very rare for a man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones to get GRC.
Rather than a gift horse, this is a tricky one for Sunak. I think he’ll just try to keep quiet about it for now, if he is smart he will realise he is already fighting on too many fronts - and to start to look shop tired will be a dangerous political outcome for PM and government. So in my mind articles in Telegraph and Mail like this one is most likely the media trying to pressure their government, rather than Sunak’s government planting stories in the press to turn the woke war heat up on Labour.
Mm. DavidL made a couple of very interesting posts yesterday (about 8-12 lines long each) or the day before (I think) on the actual legislative problems - in part that the question falls to both legislatures, Holyrood and Westminster controlling different aspects IIRC. Definitely worth looking them up.
Graun (dunno if other papers are) is running stories about Mr Sunak threatening to block the Holyrood legislation (thjough I am not sure how he can do this as such without contravening the Scotland Act, as opposed to not permitting it in rUK).
The actual quote is pretty thin - maybe, look, decide. Edit: Surprisingly so in the circs, perhaps, although they'd want to see the actual legislation passed.
"Lots of people have got concerns about this new bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women’s and children’s safety.
So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children’s safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is."
There have been quite a number of glib comments about a s35 order in terms of the Scotland Act but such an order preventing the Presiding Officer from submitting the bill for Royal Assent is only competent in limited circumstances. The only one remotely applicable here would be if the Bill impinged on a reserved matter. That would be more difficult to assert after Lady Haldane’s recent judgment. I think the government would be unwise to go down that route.
Thanks for that - interesting. Good to have informed comment.
Had some nice food. Roaring log fire. Die Hard in 4k Uktra & Dolby Atmos.
Must be Christmas.
Stuck in hospital waiting for drugs for the wife to come home. Told she could leave at 10.30. Still here, drugs need collecting from the in house pharmacy. Very annoyed.
They did that to me at Derriford in Plymouth once.
It's more than a bit ridiculous really. You would have thought it should be possible for them to write a prescription.
I'm sure @Foxy will explain there's a good reason why they can't. But it's still a massive pain.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
No way.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
No, I think that's unnecessary exclusive and legitimises it.
Cash should be a right.
Quick break from the panic of Christmas prep (stoves made up, red cabbage prepared, christmas pud cloth cover replaced, stuffing and mince pies to make still, dummy run of the homemade elderflower sorbet course and the goats cheese, honey and toasted sunflower seeds on homemade french bread course to try, duck collected)
Re cash - Too late I am afraid. Adnams pubs refuse cash and if you go to Southwold you don't get a choice of whose pub you go to. During my holiday in Iceland a few years ago I didn't need to use cash once, which was handy as we didn't have any.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Dont - If you lose your phone , how will you ring to stop your card? If you lose your card you can always ring up immediately .
That's always been my fear. Surely seeing someone pay by phone is incentive to steal that phone?
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Dont - If you lose your phone , how will you ring to stop your card? If you lose your card you can always ring up immediately .
That's always been my fear. Surely seeing someone pay by phone is incentive to steal that phone?
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Being the fourth party in the commons, and so losing the weekly three questions at PMQs has to be part of it. The coalition stench on them amongst leftwingers must be fading now, you would think. It's bizarre the lib dems haven't been able to capitalize on their remainerism in a broader way than just byelections.
Tiverton & Honiton, Chesham & Amersham and North Shropshire have shown there's life in the old psychopaths yet. Small yet satisfying local advances and some decent local election results are symptomatic of a slow but steady recovery and we forget (intentionally or otherwise) the Party surpassed the Conservatives in Councillor numbers while only having 22 seats in the Commons.
It took a long time to persuade voters who were happy to back the party locally to consider backing the party at a General Election and equidistance played a big part in that at the time.
The recovery of local strength will be an integral part in the recovery of constituency strength - with every Ward won, every Councillor elected and every Council claimed, the Party inches back but it took the first era of community politics 27 years to advance from 6 seats to 46 seats.
True, but the Lib dems have 2500 councillors now, vs 5000 in the mid 90s. It's a long road...
But as long as it's a road with potholes they can point at, they'll be fine.
Had some nice food. Roaring log fire. Die Hard in 4k Uktra & Dolby Atmos.
Must be Christmas.
Stuck in hospital waiting for drugs for the wife to come home. Told she could leave at 10.30. Still here, drugs need collecting from the in house pharmacy. Very annoyed.
They did that to me at Derriford in Plymouth once.
It's more than a bit ridiculous really. You would have thought it should be possible for them to write a prescription.
I'm sure @Foxy will explain there's a good reason why they can't. But it's still a massive pain.
They've written the prescription, the drugs are ready but are at the in house pharmacy, not the one the patients can go to. Just unbelievably fed up. Wife is fine. Christmas eve draining away by the slow tedious minute is driving me mad.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Dont - If you lose your phone , how will you ring to stop your card? If you lose your card you can always ring up immediately .
That's always been my fear. Surely seeing someone pay by phone is incentive to steal that phone?
Most phones can be set up to require a fingerprint scan or PIN entry before it can be used for a contactless payment.
Had some nice food. Roaring log fire. Die Hard in 4k Uktra & Dolby Atmos.
Must be Christmas.
I've got the main part of Christmas dinner in the slow cooker and the place is smelling nicely of lamb and garlic. Just reading through the manual (well, skimming it) for the air fryer I bought as my xmas gadget too. Exciting times! And I had no idea *just* how many youtube channels there were given over to air fryer recipes.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
You don’t need a credit rating to get a bank account and a debit card. The alt-banks try to offer next to zero barriers to sign up - they bought in userid/password account creation…
Of course, US innovation seems to co-exist with absurd archaisms.
It’s hard to make a “same day” payment in the banking system (although various apps have sprung up to provide a kind of alternative current account banking industry).
There are still apartment blocks in NYC than employ people to man the elevators.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Dont - If you lose your phone , how will you ring to stop your card? If you lose your card you can always ring up immediately .
I have to confess I'm not finding the cash/card issue too difficult currently.
There are places where I always use cash and others where I always use the debit card. If you want to go to the decent Chinese buffets in London (as distinct from the tourist traps), they will only take cash. I bet on course with cash.
The one thing I have noticed is the fall in number of ATMs - my local Tesco's used to have three, now only one and the days of queuing to use are over.
Cash won't disappear - of that I'm certain - but it is becoming marginalised.
I also thought, given the source, I should ask ChatGPT.
Q. Why has it become impossible to pay with cash?
A. It has not become impossible to pay with cash in most places.
Oh.
The only cashless place I can think of round here is Chase Leisure Centre. Which hardly ever takes money on the door anyway as you have to book all sessions in advance online and most facilities are free to members.
Thinking about it - there are quite a few 'Card payments only' places around here. Even a couple of the small/fancy coffee places. It's also noticeable that middle-aged people are mostly tapping their card on a reader, and younger folk tend to use their phones.
I think I've only used my phone to pay once, and it felt weird. Witchcraft I tell ye!
I'm a pensioner, and have my card on my phone. Which means when I go out I need only take my phone, no wallet to get out and worry about losing. I've found this very mildly transformational in making life easier.
For some bizarre, mildly luddite reason, I've restarted handing my card details over to my phone. I'm sure I'll do it eventually.
Dont - If you lose your phone , how will you ring to stop your card? If you lose your card you can always ring up immediately .
That's always been my fear. Surely seeing someone pay by phone is incentive to steal that phone?
Most phones can be set up to require a fingerprint scan or PIN entry before it can be used for a contactless payment.
Even worse - the incentive then is to steal your phone AND cut your finger off.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
Actually, they don't. Most of them get charged for accepting card payments. Not for cash.
Oddly, it is actually the other way around here for that reason, most of the smaller shops only accept cash. Indeed, I withdrew money from a cash point this morning and some of it was in fivers.
I suspect the reasons for the article are twofold: (1) he lives in London which has a very different and much more expensive economy than the rest of the country (2) in places outside London which don't have banks - which is now the majority of smaller towns - it's a right pain trying to pay in or withdraw cash, so businesses are switching to cards by default.
Cost of transporting and banking cash can be expensive. Be interesting to know how that stacks up against card fees. Also, I wonder if you don't except cash how that effects insurance, because obviously no cash, far less likely somebody is going to rob a small shop.
This is from 2019 and has cash costing 9% vs electronic 1.75%. (9% sounds high but it will be much more than 1.75%)
And since then electronic costs will have come down through competition whereas labour intensive cash will be going up with wage inflation.
That is complete rubbish. And not surprising since it is a puff piece from a contactless service company. I regularly bank cash from fairs and markets and my costs are less than 1%. The fact they include the time taken to pay with cash which actually, for any local business, is time interacting with the customer and doing a bit of casual brand building, shows how desperate they are to warp the numbers.
Also, it mentions queueing. Just not a thing in many smaller shops except at peak times.
They also talk about timings, but I note they haven't included the time involved in setting up the terminal to take the payment.
Absolutely. And the time taken for the system to approve or - as is the case every 10 or so transactions - to make you put your card into the reader and type in your number as a security check.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
@Mike - You seem to want a hung parliament with LibDems appointed to senior government positions 😲
But anyway... assuming Cygnus atratus doesn't put in an appearance and there are no other spectaculars, I will be offline until Epiphany, or Christmas Eve as my Russian paymasters call it.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
You don’t need a credit rating to get a bank account and a debit card. The alt-banks try to offer next to zero barriers to sign up - they bought in userid/password account creation…
What are the barriers that these people face?
There is an element of 'let them eat cake' about that comment.
According to the Government 2 million households in the UK have no access to the internet either fixed line or mobile.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
In fact it is a myth that cash was introduced to replace barter - there's no evidence of barter's being the primary means of exchange in societies with recorded history, outside wartime and such. Perhaps because as soon as you have a historical record, you can extend credit to people.
1. I said to regulate not to replace. 2. It is true there is now a widely accepted archaeological theory that the introduction of cash in pre-Invasion Iron age communities across Europe was not for the use it had assumed in the Roman Empire but was instead copying the idea of coinage but without its actually use in trade. This is based on the fact that coinage in pre-Roman IA sites is almost exclusively found in hoards associated with religious and tribal sites rather than as individual coins in association with habitation.
But the earliest coinage in the world didn't appear until about 9000 years after the establishment of trade by barter. Clearly someone saw the benefit of regulated trade and the use of coinage, once it had been invented, quickly became widespread for that reason (amongst others).
I don't know what you mean by "the establishment of trade by barter". The earliest evidence in Mesopotamia and Egypt points to trade conducted using (a) bullion (b) primitive credit arrangements involving future transactions (c) commodities like grain. At most (c) was barter, but if the grain was for future exchange rather than own use, it's more like a very inefficient currency.
I have to confess I'm not finding the cash/card issue too difficult currently.
There are places where I always use cash and others where I always use the debit card. If you want to go to the decent Chinese buffets in London (as distinct from the tourist traps), they will only take cash. I bet on course with cash.
The one thing I have noticed is the fall in number of ATMs - my local Tesco's used to have three, now only one and the days of queuing to use are over.
Cash won't disappear - of that I'm certain - but it is becoming marginalised.
We can be even more precise and say that cash is becoming predictably correlated to small-scale tax dodge jobs.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
In fact it is a myth that cash was introduced to replace barter - there's no evidence of barter's being the primary means of exchange in societies with recorded history, outside wartime and such. Perhaps because as soon as you have a historical record, you can extend credit to people.
1. I said to regulate not to replace. 2. It is true there is now a widely accepted archaeological theory that the introduction of cash in pre-Invasion Iron age communities across Europe was not for the use it had assumed in the Roman Empire but was instead copying the idea of coinage but without its actually use in trade. This is based on the fact that coinage in pre-Roman IA sites is almost exclusively found in hoards associated with religious and tribal sites rather than as individual coins in association with habitation.
But the earliest coinage in the world didn't appear until about 9000 years after the establishment of trade by barter. Clearly someone saw the benefit of regulated trade and the use of coinage, once it had been invented, quickly became widespread for that reason (amongst others).
I don't know what you mean by "the establishment of trade by barter". The earliest evidence in Mesopotamia and Egypt points to trade conducted using (a) bullion (b) primitive credit arrangements involving future transactions (c) commodities like grain. At most (c) was barter, but if the grain was for future exchange rather than own use, it's more like a very inefficient currency.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
The "Unionist" bit in the Scottish [Conservative and] Unionist Party is *Irish* unionism, primarily. The emphasis shifted to Scottish unionism when they lost that one and the Scots home rule movement wanted some of that too, until WW1 came along and the agenda changed. Unionism continued to be highly anti_Irish and anti-RC and nativist until well into my lifetime in the West Central area.
But there was plenty of struggle in Scoltland before that. The crofters' rights laws and administrative devolution of the late C19/early C20 were direct responses to try and head off the home rule movement, in the absolute teeth of Tory opposition. And of course the SNP's precursor and Labour Party were both founded in part as home rule parties for Scotland in reaction to Unionist and Tory policies.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
In fact it is a myth that cash was introduced to replace barter - there's no evidence of barter's being the primary means of exchange in societies with recorded history, outside wartime and such. Perhaps because as soon as you have a historical record, you can extend credit to people.
1. I said to regulate not to replace. 2. It is true there is now a widely accepted archaeological theory that the introduction of cash in pre-Invasion Iron age communities across Europe was not for the use it had assumed in the Roman Empire but was instead copying the idea of coinage but without its actually use in trade. This is based on the fact that coinage in pre-Roman IA sites is almost exclusively found in hoards associated with religious and tribal sites rather than as individual coins in association with habitation.
But the earliest coinage in the world didn't appear until about 9000 years after the establishment of trade by barter. Clearly someone saw the benefit of regulated trade and the use of coinage, once it had been invented, quickly became widespread for that reason (amongst others).
I don't know what you mean by "the establishment of trade by barter". The earliest evidence in Mesopotamia and Egypt points to trade conducted using (a) bullion (b) primitive credit arrangements involving future transactions (c) commodities like grain. At most (c) was barter, but if the grain was for future exchange rather than own use, it's more like a very inefficient currency.
Surely (b) is a form of barter too?
You could see it that way. But if you admit (b), it removes a lot of the straw man role of barter as an inefficient form of exchange, so people are reluctant to admit it.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
You don’t need a credit rating to get a bank account and a debit card. The alt-banks try to offer next to zero barriers to sign up - they bought in userid/password account creation…
What are the barriers that these people face?
Finding out about it. It's news to me, and I'm reasonably well-informed. If you're a bit marginalised, don't read a paper, etc., there are lots of things familiar to others that you won't know.
That's a general issue - there is broadly an inverse correlation in our society between needing help and knowing where to find it. I found I could "solve" about half the issues that constituents raised with me, not because I was some sort of miracle-worker but because I knew (from experiencing other similar cases) where to ask. The CAB is supposed to fulfil that function, but CAB offices are thin on the ground.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
PS: Scottish unionism is *British* unionism. Else why are all those rUK MPs insisting on voting against Scottish independence? That's not a purely Scottish phenomenon.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
We are undoubtedly the best educated. Which is why we vote LibDem (unless we vote tactically for Labour).
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Come now, the poor, concilliatory, collaborative Conservative party is always being reluctantly drawn into fights by Sturgeon and the SNP.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
PS: Scottish unionism is *British* unionism. Else why are all those rUK MPs insisting on voting against Scottish independence? That's not a purely Scottish phenomenon.
To be pedantic the rUK MPs are campaigning against a vote on Scottish independence, probably because the very idea of a referendum in which they wouldn't be able to vote sends them into a convulsive rage. Bit like a few on PB..
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
You don’t need a credit rating to get a bank account and a debit card. The alt-banks try to offer next to zero barriers to sign up - they bought in userid/password account creation…
What are the barriers that these people face?
Finding out about it. It's news to me, and I'm reasonably well-informed. If you're a bit marginalised, don't read a paper, etc., there are lots of things familiar to others that you won't know.
That's a general issue - there is broadly an inverse correlation in our society between needing help and knowing where to find it. I found I could "solve" about half the issues that constituents raised with me, not because I was some sort of miracle-worker but because I knew (from experiencing other similar cases) where to ask. The CAB is supposed to fulfil that function, but CAB offices are thin on the ground.
And rarely open. Almost never outside regular working hours.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
More than 90% of the admittedly small number of cases of gender dysmorphia that the Scottish Prison Service have to deal only seem to be asserted once the person claiming to suffer from dysmorphia are in prison. Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
In addition, a large percentage are in for sex crimes:
The amendment which excluded sex offenders from self identifying really would have taken a lot of the heat out of this. I understand that they were concerned about whether this was compatible with the Equality Act but discussions should have taken place with London about this and an agreement found.
Penny Mordaunt has written quite an interesting piece on Con Home about dystopian Britain we would now be experiencing had the country voted for Ed Miliband in 2015.
It’s actually quite good, although it makes a number of claims which seem suspect (has crime really halved under the Tories?).
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
More than 90% of the admittedly small number of cases of gender dysmorphia that the Scottish Prison Service have to deal only seem to be asserted once the person claiming to suffer from dysmorphia are in prison. Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
In addition, a large percentage are in for sex crimes:
The amendment which excluded sex offenders from self identifying really would have taken a lot of the heat out of this. I understand that they were concerned about whether this was compatible with the Equality Act but discussions should have taken place with London about this and an agreement found.
Which would never have happened, given UKG and its policy of never cooperating where possible, above all on woke issues.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
Another foreign arsehole pretending to be a Scotch expert whilst blowing hot air from his butt. Knowledge of Scotland ZERO.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
More than 90% of the admittedly small number of cases of gender dysmorphia that the Scottish Prison Service have to deal only seem to be asserted once the person claiming to suffer from dysmorphia are in prison. Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
In addition, a large percentage are in for sex crimes:
Hang on - those are *English* data - as the name Ministry of Justice tends to indicate - and you are claiming (edit: quite possibly unintentionally) it applies to the Scottish Prison Service.
I'm sure similar data apply in proportion - but numbers a tenth of that, or a whisker lesws, are likely pro rata for population. Rather a different perspective.
I agree with those who find the Lib Dem “air war” disappointing.
Ed Davey is best of an indifferent bunch and, although I do rate him, for whatever reason he hasn’t cut through*.
Also, policy-making seems moribund. They do indeed seem like they want to double down on the nimby vote which may be smart psephologically but is depressing for those of us longing for a change in Britain’s downward spiral.
Despite all of the above, I continue to believe that the least worst outcome for Britain in 24 is a Labour government which relies on Lib Dem support.
*ie can you imagine a Spitting Image puppet made of him?
Being the fourth party in the commons, and so losing the weekly three questions at PMQs has to be part of it. The coalition stench on them amongst leftwingers must be fading now, you would think. It's bizarre the lib dems haven't been able to capitalize on their remainerism in a broader way than just byelections.
Tiverton & Honiton, Chesham & Amersham and North Shropshire have shown there's life in the old psychopaths yet. Small yet satisfying local advances and some decent local election results are symptomatic of a slow but steady recovery and we forget (intentionally or otherwise) the Party surpassed the Conservatives in Councillor numbers while only having 22 seats in the Commons.
It took a long time to persuade voters who were happy to back the party locally to consider backing the party at a General Election and equidistance played a big part in that at the time.
The recovery of local strength will be an integral part in the recovery of constituency strength - with every Ward won, every Councillor elected and every Council claimed, the Party inches back but it took the first era of community politics 27 years to advance from 6 seats to 46 seats.
True, but the Lib dems have 2500 councillors now, vs 5000 in the mid 90s. It's a long road...
You're right. It is a long road. It took ten years to build from 2500 councillors in 1985 to 5000 in 1995 and we're back to 2500 councillors but slowly gaining.
I am unimpressed by JK Rowling's arguments, which on the surface are that it gives carte-blanche to predatory males to make a false declaration to invade women-only spaces. In that case the effort should be on tightening up the measures within the Bill to prevent false declarations, and not to stop trans people self identifying at all.
Requiring people to go through a process negates the whole point of self-identifying.
More than 90% of the admittedly small number of cases of gender dysmorphia that the Scottish Prison Service have to deal only seem to be asserted once the person claiming to suffer from dysmorphia are in prison. Curious how the possibility of being detained in a woman’s prison rather than a man’s prison seems to bring this on.
In addition, a large percentage are in for sex crimes:
The amendment which excluded sex offenders from self identifying really would have taken a lot of the heat out of this. I understand that they were concerned about whether this was compatible with the Equality Act but discussions should have taken place with London about this and an agreement found.
Belated edit to my last comment after realising the the data adduced earlier were not for Scotland: you are (again) absolutely right in your comment, and I should have made this clear.
But I feel even less convinced that UKG would have lifted a fimnger in view of the data - this has been an issue for years and UKG have not resolved the issue even post Brexit. Still less likely to do so when they are in the middle of wokebashing the SNP - but also the LDs and Labour and Greens.
I was checking how long Rishi had been PM (it's 2 months tomorrow), and I saw the first para of his wikipedia article claims (without citation) that he has been described as belonging to the centre-ground of the Conservative Party.
Seems to me he has generally been presented on the right wing - economically, and on immigration etc - it's just that he has found himself needing to raise taxes and by comparison to the 'hope for a miracle' plans of Truss he presents as more careful and cautious is all.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
No way.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
Absolutely
Cash is just red tape, and now we’ve left the evil continent of Europe we can burn it (literally)
Serious thought - will the disappearance of cash add to the likelihood of joining the Euro at some point? Once people get used to not seeing the Queen/King on a piece of paper/metal, it’s just a number on the till, regardless of the preceding character.
“10 days to save the pound” won’t resonate as much if people haven’t held or even seen a pound for months…
I was checking how long Rishi had been PM (it's 2 months tomorrow), and I saw the first para of his wikipedia article claims (without citation) that he has been described as belonging to the centre-ground of the Conservative Party.
Seems to me he has generally been presented on the right wing - economically, and on immigration etc - it's just that he has found himself needing to raise taxes and by comparison to the 'hope for a miracle' plans of Truss he presents as more careful and cautious is all.
Not in the ERG loon space but as a Thatcherite and Leaver he's certainly on the right. But with the whole party shifting that way I guess it's not wrong to say he's centre ground on their spectrum.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
Another foreign arsehole pretending to be a Scotch expert whilst blowing hot air from his butt. Knowledge of Scotland ZERO.
It's not Christmas without the usual moaning from malcolmg. He might wish to reflect on the origins of the SNP, formed in 1934 and modelled on Hitler's German nationalists. It has always been a racist anti-English party.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
Another foreign arsehole pretending to be a Scotch expert whilst blowing hot air from his butt. Knowledge of Scotland ZERO.
It's not Christmas without the usual moaning from malcolmg. He might wish to reflect on the origins of the SNP, formed in 1934 and modelled on Hitler's German nationalists. It has always been a racist anti-English party.
If you want Nazis, look up Archibald Ramsay. And how his treatment differed from Arthur Donaldfson.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
There are definite advantages to cash, and I used to make a special effort to use it, but I spent the day in Cork city yesterday, and only bought one thing with cash, and that was a rather quixotic decision because the post office had decided I had to pay for an envelope separately from postage. I even had a fair bit of cash with me.
You can see that people who rely on cash are adjusting - there were charity collectors out with card swiping terminals in their hands, as well as coin boxes. Small-scale community cake bake sales will have to follow - surely some digital bank or other will develop an app that can turn a smartphone into a point-of-sale machine, if this hasn't been done already (spoiler: it's been done already).
Cash is dead.
In France they have a law which makes it compulsory for businesses to accept cash if the customer wants to use it.
What illiberal, anti-innovation shite.
Hmm. I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand it does seem like it is for the state to decide who can accept the cash the state produces, and how they do it.
No way.
Accepting and handling cash can be a major faff for some small traders. If people who prefer cash don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere.
No, I think that's unnecessary exclusive and legitimises it.
Cash should be a right.
One of the things about the US which impresses me is the restless innovation.
I’m just talking for the moment about consumer-facing products and services, but I believe it to be a general truth.
Insisting that businesses handle cash seems like one of the trifling regulations that sound reasonable in isolation but end up blocking British businesses off whole nascent industries. The Americans seem to get around this stuff more easily.
I actually prefer using my card for most things but it's the principle: some people can't and tangible money is what it all boils down to, and how kids learn about it. It also helps when for whatever reason, the machine fails or can't get a signal.
Cash is legal tender and I think everyone should be legally obliged to accept it. Only a minority will choose to do so, most of the time, and I don't see that as being a big deal.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The gleeful enthusiasm with which Unionists greet every new Nat killing silver bullet is almost touching. I think the first time I noticed the phenomenon was the mass screeching, front page headlines and predictions of Natogeddon when it was discovered that Swinney had allowed the 3p Tartan Tax facility to lapse.
That was 2010.
The main point is that since elections are still fought by parties with manifestos rather than rich egos on twitter, the GRR is something that SLab & the SLDs can’t weaponise without blowing their own feet off. If anyone thinks that the Douglas Ross No to Indyref II party are going to benefit electorally from changing room hysteria I’m sure there will be plenty of betting opportunities with which they can fill their boots.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
The "Unionist" bit in the Scottish [Conservative and] Unionist Party is *Irish* unionism, primarily. The emphasis shifted to Scottish unionism when they lost that one and the Scots home rule movement wanted some of that too, until WW1 came along and the agenda changed. Unionism continued to be highly anti_Irish and anti-RC and nativist until well into my lifetime in the West Central area.
But there was plenty of struggle in Scoltland before that. The crofters' rights laws and administrative devolution of the late C19/early C20 were direct responses to try and head off the home rule movement, in the absolute teeth of Tory opposition. And of course the SNP's precursor and Labour Party were both founded in part as home rule parties for Scotland in reaction to Unionist and Tory policies.
That applies to the British Conservative party as well.
It dates when from when Liberal unionists split from the Liberal party in the 1890s, joined the Conservative Party and the party eventually changed its name formally in 1912.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Edit: Else it's like claiming to be married to oneself.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
Another foreign arsehole pretending to be a Scotch expert whilst blowing hot air from his butt. Knowledge of Scotland ZERO.
It's not Christmas without the usual moaning from malcolmg. He might wish to reflect on the origins of the SNP, formed in 1934 and modelled on Hitler's German nationalists. It has always been a racist anti-English party.
If you want Nazis, look up Archibald Ramsay. And how his treatment differed from Arthur Donaldfson.
If we're on whataboutery of the 1930s, it's ironic to reflect that all six MPs who sat for Mosley's New Party were ex-Labour and that the newspaper that supported them for the longest was not the Mail but the Mirror.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The gleeful enthusiasm with which Unionists greet every new Nat killing silver bullet is almost touching. I think the first time I noticed the phenomenon was the mass screeching, front page headlines and predictions of Natogeddon when it was discovered that Swinney had allowed the 3p Tartan Tax facility to lapse.
That was 2010.
The main point is that since elections are still fought by parties with manifestos rather than rich egos on twitter, the GRR is something that SLab & the SLDs can’t weaponise without blowing their own feet off. If anyone thinks that the Douglas Ross No to Indyref II party are going to benefit electorally from changing room hysteria I’m sure there will be plenty of betting opportunities with which they can fill their boots.
Next FM market: Douglas Ross 16/1
That just screeches LAY.
Your peculiar sexual proclivities are no concern of ours.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
The British Unionist Party of Scotland, not the Scottish Unionist Party of Scotland.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
The British Unionist Party of Scotland, not the Scottish Unionist Party of Scotland.
Even more precisely, the Irish Unionist Party of Scotland, to begin with.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
The British Unionist Party of Scotland, not the Scottish Unionist Party of Scotland.
I don’t believe they were ever called the “British Unionists”.
I suspect the reason you suggest otherwise is to promote this manicheanism of “Scottish” versus “British”.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Unionism in Scotland has a distinctly Scottish history and set of characteristics.
That’s all I’m saying.
Trying to retro-fit today’s “SNP” v “The Tories” back into the 19th century is not accurate.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Your namesakes the Stuarts were Scottish, were they not?
Three successive Saturday afternoons without horse racing on tv - how will the world survive?
Without wishing to poke the hornet's nest too much, I've not seen much comment on the awful borrowing figures from earlier in the week. £22 billion was borrowed in November which was well above City estimates - £7.3 billion of the figure was debt interest repayment so we are borrowing to cover our existing £2 trillion debt.
It's back then to the old argument which informs the Government's current stance on strikes - one side is you can reduce borrowing by reducing spending and that includes money on wages (though not pensions) so you persuade/cajole public sector workers to accept net pay cuts to help balance the books.
I suppose the other side of this is around money to support energy bills which has given to everyone irrespective of need (a pensioner friend has told me she has received nearly £1,000 of Government money toward her energy bills for a two-bedroom flat).
There's also the proposition another way of reducing borrowing is to get in more revenue from taxation and if that can't or isn't being derived from expanding economic activity, then levels of taxation will need to rise to close the gap.
The truth is it's not really an either/or, it's more likely a both/and.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
The British Unionist Party of Scotland, not the Scottish Unionist Party of Scotland.
Even more precisely, the Irish Unionist Party of Scotland, to begin with.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Unionism in Scotland has a distinctly Scottish history and set of characteristics.
That’s all I’m saying.
Trying to retro-fit today’s “SNP” v “The Tories” back into the 19th century is not accurate.
Not to mention a distinctly Irish history in the first place. Whiuch makes it rather un-distinctly Scottish.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Your namesakes the Stuarts were Scottish, were they not?
He's also got a mouse for a namesake, which must prove somethign as well, so I'm hoping you can explain that as well.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Unionism in Scotland has a distinctly Scottish history and set of characteristics.
That’s all I’m saying.
Trying to retro-fit today’s “SNP” v “The Tories” back into the 19th century is not accurate.
Not to mention a distinctly Irish history in the first place. Whiuch makes it rather un-distinctly Scottish.
No it doesn’t. These people were Scots. Absurd to pretend otherwise.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Your namesakes the Stuarts were Scottish, were they not?
Charles I was about as Scottish as Tony Blair I suppose.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Unionism in Scotland has a distinctly Scottish history and set of characteristics.
That’s all I’m saying.
Trying to retro-fit today’s “SNP” v “The Tories” back into the 19th century is not accurate.
Not to mention a distinctly Irish history in the first place. Whiuch makes it rather un-distinctly Scottish.
No it doesn’t. These people were Scots. Absurd to pretend otherwise.
Have a look at the history books. Rather a lot of them WERE Irish, for all that they had addresses in Glasgow etc.
Three successive Saturday afternoons without horse racing on tv - how will the world survive?
Without wishing to poke the hornet's nest too much, I've not seen much comment on the awful borrowing figures from earlier in the week. £22 billion was borrowed in November which was well above City estimates - £7.3 billion of the figure was debt interest repayment so we are borrowing to cover our existing £2 trillion debt.
It's back then to the old argument which informs the Government's current stance on strikes - one side is you can reduce borrowing by reducing spending and that includes money on wages (though not pensions) so you persuade/cajole public sector workers to accept net pay cuts to help balance the books.
I suppose the other side of this is around money to support energy bills which has given to everyone irrespective of need (a pensioner friend has told me she has received nearly £1,000 of Government money toward her energy bills for a two-bedroom flat).
There's also the proposition another way of reducing borrowing is to get in more revenue from taxation and if that can't or isn't being derived from expanding economic activity, then levels of taxation will need to rise to close the gap.
The truth is it's not really an either/or, it's more likely a both/and.
Appalling figures from a supposedly conservative government - afraid to take tough decisions - afraid to take conservative decision - no point to them
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
Interesting that it's always the Tories that have "started" a culture war with this, whereas it's actually the SNP.
At this stage, both need each other.
I’ve no doubt Sturgeon had one eye on the “create friction with Westminster” possibility, whatever the merits or otherwise of the bill.
Oh yes, Sturgeon's strategic political interest is in stoking resentment against Westminster and the Union.
So, that's what she will do.
But it's been the strategic political aim of the Conservative Party for many, many years to hinder Scottish home rule, independence and the Holyrood Parliament as much as they possibly can. Right back to the 19th century. And it hjas been much, much worse under the Johnson and Truss regimes. So why are you shocked to find the SNP commenting on this?
Scottish unionism was/is a Scottish phenomenon, though. I’m not convinced by your historical analysis.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
“Scottish unionism”? Huh? What’s that?
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
You have perhaps forgotten about the Unionist Party of Scotland, “ the main centre-right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965”, according to Wikipedia.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
But it was Irish Unionism to begin with, then British, as I have patiently explained earlier.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Sure, but it was a Scottish phenomenon.
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
British Unionism was “a Scottish phenomenon”?!?
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
Your namesakes the Stuarts were Scottish, were they not?
Charles I was about as Scottish as Tony Blair I suppose.
Why have right wingers forgotten how market forces work and freedom for businesses to choose how they operate?
It is happening because businesses make more profit that way.
There is a case to regulate and slow down the pace of change but it is another technology that is not going away and eventually (in schoolkids lifetimes if not well before) we will end up a cashless society. I don't think that is a good thing but it is pretty inevitable and down to market forces. Something right wingers used to understand.
One result of this will be the return of barter on a much wider scale - something that cash was introduced to rationalise. Indeed this is already happening and funnily enough amongst that younger generation you refer to and of course amongst the poorer parts of society where getting a credit card or even a debit card can be nearly impossible for some. There are almost 6 million people in the UK currently who don't have a credit rating or whose credit history is too slight to allow them to operate in a digital world. These are not people with debt or a bad credit score. They just don't have one at all.
In fact it is a myth that cash was introduced to replace barter - there's no evidence of barter's being the primary means of exchange in societies with recorded history, outside wartime and such. Perhaps because as soon as you have a historical record, you can extend credit to people.
1. I said to regulate not to replace. 2. It is true there is now a widely accepted archaeological theory that the introduction of cash in pre-Invasion Iron age communities across Europe was not for the use it had assumed in the Roman Empire but was instead copying the idea of coinage but without its actually use in trade. This is based on the fact that coinage in pre-Roman IA sites is almost exclusively found in hoards associated with religious and tribal sites rather than as individual coins in association with habitation.
But the earliest coinage in the world didn't appear until about 9000 years after the establishment of trade by barter. Clearly someone saw the benefit of regulated trade and the use of coinage, once it had been invented, quickly became widespread for that reason (amongst others).
I don't know what you mean by "the establishment of trade by barter". The earliest evidence in Mesopotamia and Egypt points to trade conducted using (a) bullion (b) primitive credit arrangements involving future transactions (c) commodities like grain. At most (c) was barter, but if the grain was for future exchange rather than own use, it's more like a very inefficient currency.
Surely (b) is a form of barter too?
I would love to know what evidence barter leaves in the historic record. I would take barter to mean immediate swap - goods now vs promise of different goods in future looks more like credit trading to me.
The earliest form of trading I am aware of is gift exchange, not barter.
Comments
Rishi went straight into a safe seat and entered parliament less than eight years ago. Even if he were brilliant, he'd still be inexperienced.
The point I am making is that every time the Conservatives have come to power our nation is improved.
Must be Christmas.
Conclusion: Whenever the UK government changes, things improve.
Theory: Voters vote for a new government when they are unhappy with the incumbents.
2. It is true there is now a widely accepted archaeological theory that the introduction of cash in pre-Invasion Iron age communities across Europe was not for the use it had assumed in the Roman Empire but was instead copying the idea of coinage but without its actually use in trade. This is based on the fact that coinage in pre-Roman IA sites is almost exclusively found in hoards associated with religious and tribal sites rather than as individual coins in association with habitation.
But the earliest coinage in the world didn't appear until about 9000 years after the establishment of trade by barter. Clearly someone saw the benefit of regulated trade and the use of coinage, once it had been invented, quickly became widespread for that reason (amongst others).
Yet you are urging Sunak to rush headlong into that? Thinking he’ll come out the winner, not Reform? You may need to rethink that strategy.
I’m just talking for the moment about consumer-facing products and services, but I believe it to be a general truth.
Insisting that businesses handle cash seems like one of the trifling regulations that sound reasonable in isolation but end up blocking British businesses off whole nascent industries. The Americans seem to get around this stuff more easily.
At the heart of Rowlings argument is laws which certify gender identity on the basis of self-identification alone will have the result of endangering women and girls by legally entitling individuals who were assigned as male at birth to access "women-only" spaces such as public bathrooms. It’s definitely time to ask Sunak and his government to explain themselves and make their own opinions crystal clear - are they are fellow travellers with Rowlings argument, because at the moment the law in England not just Scotland takes a dim view of practicing and encouraging “absolutism” in public and the work place, on the basis it creates hostile environment for Trans people.
Those who think the boot is on the other foot and it’s time for Tory’s to go on the attack on this need to remember how this plays in the courts already, and how it went down in the big Tory leadership election back in the summer - correct me where wrong, but after some brief skirmish at the start, they all decided to shut up about it. Rather than hurting Labour, this government clarifying questions such as, do you believe Transwomen are men? is it not possible for someone who is male to become female? That personally you wouldn’t recognise them as female even if they held a legally binding Gender Recognition Certificate government-issued by the current Conservative government, is likely to make the government look no different than SNP and Labour with their answers on this, the big winners being big chunk of voters Reform will get from the Tories.
It's more than a bit ridiculous really. You would have thought it should be possible for them to write a prescription.
I'm sure @Foxy will explain there's a good reason why they can't. But it's still a massive pain.
Re cash - Too late I am afraid. Adnams pubs refuse cash and if you go to Southwold you don't get a choice of whose pub you go to. During my holiday in Iceland a few years ago I didn't need to use cash once, which was handy as we didn't have any.
Surely seeing someone pay by phone is incentive to steal that phone?
Here are the instructions for an iPhone.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/icloud/mmfc0ef36f/icloud
*chef’s kiss*
What are the barriers that these people face?
It’s hard to make a “same day” payment in the banking system (although various apps have sprung up to provide a kind of alternative current account banking industry).
There are still apartment blocks in NYC than employ people to man the elevators.
There are places where I always use cash and others where I always use the debit card. If you want to go to the decent Chinese buffets in London (as distinct from the tourist traps), they will only take cash. I bet on course with cash.
The one thing I have noticed is the fall in number of ATMs - my local Tesco's used to have three, now only one and the days of queuing to use are over.
Cash won't disappear - of that I'm certain - but it is becoming marginalised.
The SNP are a pack of grievance-mongers. That some of those grievances are legitimate and provoked doesn’t change that.
But anyway... assuming Cygnus atratus doesn't put in an appearance and there are no other spectaculars, I will be offline until Epiphany, or Christmas Eve as my Russian paymasters call it.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all PBers.
According to the Government 2 million households in the UK have no access to the internet either fixed line or mobile.
But there was plenty of struggle in Scoltland before that. The crofters' rights laws and administrative devolution of the late C19/early C20 were direct responses to try and head off the home rule movement, in the absolute teeth of Tory opposition. And of course the SNP's precursor and Labour Party were both founded in part as home rule parties for Scotland in reaction to Unionist and Tory policies.
That's a general issue - there is broadly an inverse correlation in our society between needing help and knowing where to find it. I found I could "solve" about half the issues that constituents raised with me, not because I was some sort of miracle-worker but because I knew (from experiencing other similar cases) where to ask. The CAB is supposed to fulfil that function, but CAB offices are thin on the ground.
Bit like a few on PB..
Almost never outside regular working hours.
Wish me luck!
Is James any good at politics?
I'm sure similar data apply in proportion - but numbers a tenth of that, or a whisker lesws, are likely pro rata for population. Rather a different perspective.
But I feel even less convinced that UKG would have lifted a fimnger in view of the data - this has been an issue for years and UKG have not resolved the issue even post Brexit. Still less likely to do so when they are in the middle of wokebashing the SNP - but also the LDs and Labour and Greens.
Seems to me he has generally been presented on the right wing - economically, and on immigration etc - it's just that he has found himself needing to raise taxes and by comparison to the 'hope for a miracle' plans of Truss he presents as more careful and cautious is all.
You mean British unionism, which exists in various countries.
Cash is just red tape, and now we’ve left the evil continent of Europe we can burn it (literally)
Serious thought - will the disappearance of cash add to the likelihood of joining the Euro at some point? Once people get used to not seeing the Queen/King on a piece of paper/metal, it’s just a number on the till, regardless of the preceding character.
“10 days to save the pound” won’t resonate as much if people haven’t held or even seen a pound for months…
Cash is legal tender and I think everyone should be legally obliged to accept it. Only a minority will choose to do so, most of the time, and I don't see that as being a big deal.
That just screeches LAY.
I guess you have been in Sweden a while now. 😂
It dates when from when Liberal unionists split from the Liberal party in the 1890s, joined the Conservative Party and the party eventually changed its name formally in 1912.
You need to specify what you are wanting to be in Union with.
Edit: Else it's like claiming to be married to oneself.
Sunak could do with some of that. Heck, he could do with even a modicum of foresight...
There was long a decent chunk of the Scottish population who desired a British (which includes Scottish) unitary state as opposed to the various home rule etc ideas favoured by Labour, Liberal, and now the SNP.
I suspect the reason you suggest otherwise is to promote this manicheanism of “Scottish” versus “British”.
Christ almighty. Puhrleese.
https://twitter.com/RemyBuisine/status/1606637135469350913
That’s all I’m saying.
Trying to retro-fit today’s “SNP” v “The Tories” back into the 19th century is not accurate.
Three successive Saturday afternoons without horse racing on tv - how will the world survive?
Without wishing to poke the hornet's nest too much, I've not seen much comment on the awful borrowing figures from earlier in the week. £22 billion was borrowed in November which was well above City estimates - £7.3 billion of the figure was debt interest repayment so we are borrowing to cover our existing £2 trillion debt.
It's back then to the old argument which informs the Government's current stance on strikes - one side is you can reduce borrowing by reducing spending and that includes money on wages (though not pensions) so you persuade/cajole public sector workers to accept net pay cuts to help balance the books.
I suppose the other side of this is around money to support energy bills which has given to everyone irrespective of need (a pensioner friend has told me she has received nearly £1,000 of Government money toward her energy bills for a two-bedroom flat).
There's also the proposition another way of reducing borrowing is to get in more revenue from taxation and if that can't or isn't being derived from expanding economic activity, then levels of taxation will need to rise to close the gap.
The truth is it's not really an either/or, it's more likely a both/and.
Scottish ones.
These people were Scots.
Absurd to pretend otherwise.
The earliest form of trading I am aware of is gift exchange, not barter.