Was Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer? Well, sort of. He did raise peanuts. But the bulk of the famliy income came from a warehouse his family owned. I should add, for those not famliar with the relationships between full time farmers and warehouse owners, that the interests of the two are not identical.
He also claimed at the time to have been a "physicist". I'm not sure how many real physicists would agree.
(I happened to see him give his standard talk, making those two claims, and then promising never to lie to us. It was an interesting experience, to say the least.)
For the record: It is common to give Carter low marks for his presidency, and high marks for his post-presidency; I give him mixed marks for both.
Isn't it possible to have been both farmer and physicist? His 7 years of service in the USN submarines was in a fairly technical role, before he inherited the peanut farm and related businesses.
And one speaks of people as they were trained at college, too. My chum is a historian and a banker at the same time.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Petrol was nearly £2 a litre, nine months ago. Now it’s only £1.50 or so. Yet people won’t notice that at all.
Perhaps they might notice the £500/month energy bill becoming £200/month when the Ukraine war ends, but almost no-one is giving credit to the government for the drop in price.
I don't think that war is ending any time soon. Bakhmut is taking months to play out, both sides are well entrenched - this is Syria mk II
Or Afghanistan mk III.
If Ben Wallace´s suggestion that 98% of the Russian army is already committed in Ukraine, and the reports of massive Russian losses in the past two weeks are true, then Russia could be in really serious trouble. We hardly dare hope here, but there are some rumours that the Russian offensive line has collapsed.
It is said that Wagner may have lost over three quarters of their combat capability, but the destruction of the naval brigade is even worse than removing the sweepings of the Russian prison system from the field of battle. When elite units with top rated kit like that are destroyed it knocks holes in the line that are not quickly filled so I think that the reason that NATO has suddenly got busy is that although the Ukrainians are nearly as punch drunk as the Russians, new kit and a lot more Ammo could turn the tide.
We are holding our breath, but the UAF seem to have had the best of the Russian offensive in the past week or so.
Yes, it does look as if the Russian naval brigade from the Far East Fleet got badly mauled and it is back to the human wave and artillery pounding of the meat grinder.
I cannot see that 98% of the Russian army is in Ukraine (surely some in Russia and Belarus at least) but probably nearly all the deployable units are in theatre now.
I note too that the Russians have been fortifying their occupied oblast in depth, which suggests that they are planning to go on the defensive more.
Which implies that the "offensive" has already failed. They will need a lot of fortifications if a few brigades of the most modern NATO tanks turns up. Maginot Line, anyone?
The front is too big and too flat for that, isn’t it ?
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. SAFE CHOICE. WOULD LIKELY GET IT IF HE WANTED IT. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. AS ABOVE - BUT LESS REGARDED AND LESS LIKELY TO WIN CONSENSUALLY. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. EVEN DULLER THAN THE TWO ABOVE. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. NOT A CHANCE. SELF-REGARDING DISASTER AREA. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. POSSIBLE FUTURE LEADER BUT HOBBLED BY SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE VIEWS. MIGHT WELL END UP NUMBER TWO TO SWINNEY OR ROBERTSON, AS STURGEON WAS TO SALMOND.
This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. WOULD CAUSE MASSIVE RUCTIONS. EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. BARELY A BLIP ON THE RADAR. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive. HUMZA WITHOUT THE SELF-KNOWLEDGE.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
What should they be doing instead that Westminster will be more responsive to? Genuine question.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
Are the 20 branches the same as constituency? If so, Westminster or Holyrood?
Will Sturgeon endorse someone or stand neutral?
Branches are based on Holyrood constituencies, or areas thereof. For example, Cunninghame South has one branch based on the entire constituency. Cunninghame North has several branches, Skelmorlie, Largs, Garnock Valley, Cumbrae, Ardrossan and Arran.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
‘Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.’
? How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?
If the rules on nominations above are correct than the role isn't restricted to MPs or MSPs, though surely the later is most likely.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
The way democracy works in the UK has been that we don't have inflexible constitutional law, we have a sense of what is fair that is enforced by the voters.
So, for example, constitutionally no referendum can be legally binding on Parliament, because Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind its successors. However, one of the lessons of the 2019 UK GE is that the voters expect referendum results to be honoured by Parliament, and they will vote to ensure that this happens.
So the relevant question is not whether the constitution gives a legal mandate for a second referendum to a Holyrood majority, but whether the voters think it should. If the voters think it should then the Unionist parties, and the Union, will suffer from having that mandate blocked.
If the voters don't feel that they voted for the SNP and Greens to provide them with a mandate for a second referendum, then they're not going to be too bothered about having that claim to a mandate blocked.
The polling suggests that the voters aren't too bothered to be denied another independence referendum, and that's one reason why Sturgeon's strategy for independence has hit the buffers, but it's an important distinction to make.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
What should they be doing instead that Westminster will be more responsive to? Genuine question.
Alba seem to know though they’re keeping the exact roadmap very close to their chests. I suspect it may involve the boycotting of Westminster by Indy MPs, an area in which they’re leading by example.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
What should they be doing instead that Westminster will be more responsive to? Genuine question.
Personally I’d have been lobbying for a new constitutional settlement that would provide definitive trigger points, set down in legislation, for future referenda. It might have meant giving up on an imminent indyref2 as a payoff, but would have been more palatable to a Westminster government amenable to kicking the can down the road whilst claiming to have sorted the issue “for a generation.”
I would not have objected if Carter had described himself as a nuclear "engineer", given his naval training. But at that time in the US saying one had been a nuclear physicist would imply -- to most American listeners -- that he had earned a PhD in the subject.
Here's a description of his main business: "In 1951, the Carter Warehouse office was built on this location. Over the years the business grew to include a peanut shelling plant, a cotton gin and a processing plant."
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Yes I wish it were not so but I agree. And it might well become a one horse race soon enough.
Yes. All over for Arsenal now. You don't become champions by losing at home to your closest challengers.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
‘Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.’
? How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?
There’s a mistake in the article. It should refer to Salmond’s second term - 2004 to 2014. He was the MP for Banff and Buchan until 2010.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
Have you checked the situation with the Alloa line (along north side of inner Firth of Forth)? I can't remember what is happening at present. Also -
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
‘Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.’
? How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?
If the rules on nominations above are correct than the role isn't restricted to MPs or MSPs, though surely the later is most likely.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
The way democracy works in the UK has been that we don't have inflexible constitutional law, we have a sense of what is fair that is enforced by the voters.
So, for example, constitutionally no referendum can be legally binding on Parliament, because Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind its successors. However, one of the lessons of the 2019 UK GE is that the voters expect referendum results to be honoured by Parliament, and they will vote to ensure that this happens.
So the relevant question is not whether the constitution gives a legal mandate for a second referendum to a Holyrood majority, but whether the voters think it should. If the voters think it should then the Unionist parties, and the Union, will suffer from having that mandate blocked.
If the voters don't feel that they voted for the SNP and Greens to provide them with a mandate for a second referendum, then they're not going to be too bothered about having that claim to a mandate blocked.
The polling suggests that the voters aren't too bothered to be denied another independence referendum, and that's one reason why Sturgeon's strategy for independence has hit the buffers, but it's an important distinction to make.
I accept that there may come a time, where support for independence is polling above 60% for a sustained period, where things become so untenable that a rubicon has been crossed and Westminster has no choice but to accede to demands for a second vote. But we are not there yet and I think the principle that “if the voters want it so will it be willed”, whilst a fine one in British constitutional democracy, has yet to face the harsh reality of a situation where the main actor (ie Westminster here) simply decides not to follow that route.
Was Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer? Well, sort of. He did raise peanuts. But the bulk of the famliy income came from a warehouse his family owned. I should add, for those not famliar with the relationships between full time farmers and warehouse owners, that the interests of the two are not identical.
He also claimed at the time to have been a "physicist". I'm not sure how many real physicists would agree.
(I happened to see him give his standard talk, making those two claims, and then promising never to lie to us. It was an interesting experience, to say the least.)
For the record: It is common to give Carter low marks for his presidency, and high marks for his post-presidency; I give him mixed marks for both.
Isn't it possible to have been both farmer and physicist? His 7 years of service in the USN submarines was in a fairly technical role, before he inherited the peanut farm and related businesses.
Yes, he went to ‘nuclear school’ in the navy - and might have pursued a career there had not his father died. Looking at his brother later on, you can understand why it was necessary for him to go back to run the family business.
I don’t share Jim’s rather ungenerous assessment. I think he was a far better president than given credit for, and had he been less unlucky might have won a second term.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
What should they be doing instead that Westminster will be more responsive to? Genuine question.
Personally I’d have been lobbying for a new constitutional settlement that would provide definitive trigger points, set down in legislation, for future referenda. It might have meant giving up on an imminent indyref2 as a payoff, but would have been more palatable to a Westminster government amenable to kicking the can down the road whilst claiming to have sorted the issue “for a generation.”
It's an interesting idea. Though I'm not sure there's really any more desire in HMG to provide that level of clarity than there is to grant a referendum anyway. Again, it suggests an expectation that HMG would/should play fair, by setting out exactly what the rules are, when there's no real inclination for them to do so.
Anyway, it's been an interesting day, but I'll call it at that given my early start in the morning. Hope all of PB land has a good evening, what remains of it.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
Calling at Reston? What about Inverness Airport?
It may not be your final Scottish Expedition. The Levenmouth branch is due to open in Spring 2024.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
The fishmarket in Newhaven is pretty good, though I agree with Jay Rayner that their chips should be better. I've had a good dinner at Basils.
It's worth walking along to the west for a short while and heading out along Granton breakwater. You get a distant view of all three Forth bridges from the end.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
Calling at Reston? What about Inverness Airport?
Sunil is a Yellow Pen Merchant, not a Shack Scratcher.
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
‘Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.’
? How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?
If the rules on nominations above are correct than the role isn't restricted to MPs or MSPs, though surely the later is most likely.
There’s no practical way the leader of the SNP couldn’t be FM or candidate for same. Salmond stood in the first Holyrood election for that reason, again in 2007, and it’s the reason that Cherry spat the dummy when she realised she didn’t have the balls(!) to test her popularity with party members in Edinburgh Central.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
Morally perhaps but constitutionally no.
The Supreme Court has essentially decided that only Westminster has the power to legislate the future of the Union. In many ways we are now similar to Spain with its infamously “the state is indivisible” constitution - it’s not going to be easy at all to unpick.
The SNP can shout all they like, but the only way they are going to get independence is through a deal with Westminster, and they’ve been going about things the wrong way for that.
What should they be doing instead that Westminster will be more responsive to? Genuine question.
Alba seem to know though they’re keeping the exact roadmap very close to their chests. I suspect it may involve the boycotting of Westminster by Indy MPs, an area in which they’re leading by example.
I suspect they'll fairly soon have zero MP's and zero councillors.
I do like how it is pretty clear the woke rant stuff is there for form's sake only, and that he really just wants to bitch about his golf course.
Also he can't tell the difference between Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond. It was Mr S who was difficult about Mr T's demands to demolish the renewables offshore, etc.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Is it not a bit odd though that you think the standard examples as per the cards (gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer) are so outdated but that the rock festivals and Playstations are examples of refusing to grow up? Is there some sweet spot between the two?
Being blunt, I don't even understand why it is supposedly necessary for people to give up doing things they enjoy because of some arbitrary rule that it is not 'grown up'.
Should people give up reading fiction because that's essentially just childish make believe? Stop playing football with their mates (even as they get slower and slower, perhaps doing walking football) becames games are for kids?
It just sounds like snobbery. Hobbies do not make someone grown up or not. I do not doubt for a moment we all know some older people who do traditional 'grown up' things but are quite childish in their attitudes, and that many younger people can, in fact, be mature adults whilst also, gasp, playing a videogame from time to time.
People can certainly engage in those hobbies and do traditional grown up things like having families if they want. Seeing going to festivals and playing games as a refusal to grow up is working backwards from a conclusion, no different than any religious or cultural judging of others.
The state of US diplomacy, where everything in the world gets reduced to domestic social justice issues:
@USAmbKabul Are Afghans familiar with #BlackGirlMagic and the movement it inspired? Do Afghan girls need a similar movement? What about Afghan Women? Teach me, ready to learn. #BlackHistoryMonth @Beyonce@lizzo@ReginaKing
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
I don't like the word mandate as it is misused a lot (and even when someone does win a big election its not as though opponents feel obliged to accept there is a mandate), but that's where I come down on it.
I do though find it hard to believe she was that surprised at the way things went down. With Sindy support running riskily high, simply saying no and playing for time made sense as a strategy, even if it had the risk of entrenching support instead.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
Calling at Reston? What about Inverness Airport?
It may not be your final Scottish Expedition. The Levenmouth branch is due to open in Spring 2024.
Today is a very good day for Keir Starmer. No doubt about that.
Is it? I expect Labour to fall in the polls as some leftwingers go Green or DK post Corbyn's deselection. I also think Corbyn will win Islington North as an Independent.
Sturgeon's departure might be better news for him but depends on who replaces her
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Is it not a bit odd though that you think the standard examples as per the cards (gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer) are so outdated but that the rock festivals and Playstations are examples of refusing to grow up? Is there some sweet spot between the two?
Being blunt, I don't even understand why it is supposedly necessary for people to give up doing things they enjoy because of some arbitrary rule that it is not 'grown up'.
Should people give up reading fiction because that's essentially just childish make believe? Stop playing football with their mates (even as they get slower and slower, perhaps doing walking football) becames games are for kids?
It just sounds like snobbery. Hobbies do not make someone grown up or not. I do not doubt for a moment we all know some older people who do traditional 'grown up' things but are quite childish in their attitudes, and that many younger people can, in fact, be mature adults whilst also, gasp, playing a videogame from time to time.
People can certainly engage in those hobbies and do traditional grown up things like having
families if they want. Seeing going to festivals and
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
‘Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.’
? How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?
If the rules on nominations above are correct than the role isn't restricted to MPs or MSPs, though surely the later is most likely.
That’s right! Do you fancy the job?
Not really my cup of tea, but thanks for the offer.
I think she had a mistaken belief that the Tories would play fair and accept a formal deal as evidence of a mandate for a second independence referendum, but was disappointed.
But it's not a mandate
The Greens and the SNP both contested the 2021 election with a policy of holding another independence referendum. Together they have a majority.
In my book that's a mandate for a second referendum.
I don't like the word mandate as it is misused a lot (and even when someone does win a big election its not as though opponents feel obliged to accept there is a mandate), but that's where I come down on it.
I do though find it hard to believe she was that surprised at the way things went down. With Sindy support running riskily high, simply saying no and playing for time made sense as a strategy, even if it had the risk of entrenching support instead.
Simply establishing that the situation is what it is, and what the perception [edit] in London is, are significant advances. In particular, London's reliance not on some high constitutional document but on a very recent, and recently changed, act of parliament - a mere contingent document.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
Calling at Reston? What about Inverness Airport?
And East Linton?
I will pass through Reston and East Linton on the ECML to Edinburgh
I passed through the site of Inverness Airport station in March 2020. Passed over the site by bus in July 2022 when I did Kyle and Wick/Thurso.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
Yes, it may be fuzzy but it comes down to feelings. During the coalition years when it looked like we might technically be in recession (I think later revisions meant we didn't) but things didn't feel that bad to many people. This time around it feels different, thanks to inflation no doubt, as loads of people who wouldn't normally feel a hit are being careful at least.
Politico.com - The DNC Thought It Killed the Iowa Caucus. It's Not Dead Yet. Iowa Democrats are preparing to fight for their caucus — and their relevance as rural voters.
WATERLOO, Iowa – On the day the Democratic National Committee voted to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, a former congressman named Dave Nagle thumbed through a Rolodex full of faded contact cards at his desk on the seventh floor of an old department store building here.
Frost clung to the windows. Nagle knew what was coming. In Philadelphia, where the DNC met, everyone was writing Iowa’s obituary. And when the vote went as expected, his wife, Debi, who was following the proceedings on Twitter from the next room over, came to the door.
Nagle sighed.
“So,” he said, looking up from his desk. “It’s a war.”
For half a century, Iowa had gone first in the presidential nominating process, a fluke of the calendar that revolutionized the modern White House campaign. It was in Iowa that Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer and former governor of Georgia, catapulted himself to the presidency in 1976, demonstrating that even a relative nobody could make a name for himself here. The result was a quadrennial spectacle in which presidential candidates crammed into every corn- and soybean-sprouting inch of this small, rural state, transforming Iowa into the presidential campaign’s biggest stage.
But Democrats nationally had for years been tiring of Iowa, which had fallen out of step with the party’s diversifying base. Demographically, Iowa was too white; politically, it was becoming too red. President Joe Biden wanted to drop Iowa and put South Carolina first in the nominating process, and the outcome seemed inevitable.
Unlike in New Hampshire – whose early primary also was being pushed back, and where Democrats were protesting loudly — Iowa never looked like it had much of a leg to stand on. Democrats here had been embarrassed by a botched caucus in 2020, in which the flubbing of the presidential preference count was so severe that the Associated Press could not even declare a winner. They had few allies in Washington, and even fewer after the midterm elections, in which Democrats were swept out of all but one statewide executive office, auditor. Biden, if he runs for re-election as expected, is not likely even to compete here.
“It’s a wasteland,” one Democratic strategist told me. Iowa, he said, is one not-unlikely step from “becoming Idaho.”
Even in Iowa’s home-state media, it seemed as if the battle was over. . . .
But between the lines in all of that coverage, there was a sign that Iowa might not take the loss of its early caucuses lying down. . . .
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
Yes, it may be fuzzy but it comes down to feelings. During the coalition years when it looked like we might technically be in recession (I think later revisions meant we didn't) but things didn't feel that bad to many people. This time around it feels different, thanks to inflation no doubt, as loads of people who wouldn't normally feel a hit are being careful at least.
Was talking to our tame plumber (very precious beast). Orders for new boilers have dried up (sorry) considerably. People just not spending.
Keir Starmer will deliver the first Labour Government since 2010.
Are you saying you'd rather have the Tories?
Makes no difference two cheeks of the same arse as far as i am concerned
ToryJohnOwls
Sunil responsible for every Tory Policy for the last 6 yrs likes to call others Tories when the only reason he is an SKS fan is that he SKS is a Tory imitator
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
It is amusing hearing a Nat accuse other people of shagging flags - whenever I've been in Scotland in the last decade I saw the Saltire pretty much everywhere I looked. Anywhere remotely official, certainly.
And far, far more than you see Union flags in England.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
Calling at Reston? What about Inverness Airport?
And East Linton?
I will pass through Reston and East Linton on the ECML to Edinburgh
I passed through the site of Inverness Airport station in March 2020. Passed over the site by bus in July 2022 when I did Kyle and Wick/Thurso.
If you catch a transpennine train you can stop at both. Oh……
Keir Starmer will deliver the first Labour Government since 2010.
Are you saying you'd rather have the Tories?
Makes no difference two cheeks of the same arse as far as i am concerned
ToryJohnOwls
Sunil responsible for every Tory Policy for the last 6 yrs likes to call others Tories when the only reason he is an SKS fan is that he SKS is a Tory imitator
Things to consider when betting on the next SNP leader.
The leader will be chosen by one member one vote, which should weaken the influence of Sturgeon’s inner cabal. The SNP has lost a large number of members recently. I don’t have any inside information, but suspect that the lost members will be primarily the older, more strongly nationalistic activists. SNP members will know the candidates more intimately than “scotch experts”.
I don’t know how all the above will balance out, but of the expected candidates: John Swinney - was an unsuccessful leader between 2000 and 2004. Unlikely to win this time. Angus Robertson - would have been the anointed successor, but less popular with activists. Has a scheming wife, nicknamed Lady Macbeth. Keith Brown - not strongly aligned. May come through the middle on a split vote. Humza Yousaf - has suffered from being Cabinet Secretary for Health, not particularly successfully. Kate Forbes - would be a popular choice with members, particularly those outwith the central belt. A Wee Free, with more traditional social values than those held by Sturgeon and her associates. Will she want the job yet, having not yet returned from maternity leave? Would possibly be content with being leader at Holyrood, with the leader being an existing MP until the General Election. This could be: Joanna Cherry - popular with many, and extremely competent. Would pose the greatest challenge to both the Tories and Labour at Westminster, but would cause such a threat to the SNP establishment that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent her standing. Philippa Whitford - widely respected and admired. As a consultant breast surgeon, she should at least understand the pressures on the NHS. Alyn Smith - would love the job. Would be extremely divisive.
When the betting opens, there may be other candidates. Nobody seems to me to be good value yet. There may be better opportunities for laying than backing candidates.
Thanks for the summary, very interesting.
Do we know the election timescales yet?
Copied from “The National”.
“ Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.
A date for the election has not yet been announced. The 2004 election was triggered with the resignation of Swinney on June 24 and concluded on September 3 – around two and a half months.
The upcoming contest could be expected to last as long. If it does, the SNP’s upcoming special conference to decide the party’s independence strategy would likely be delayed.
According to the SNP constitution, a candidate for leader must have the nominations of at least 100 members, drawn from at least 20 branches.
The close of nominations will be 77 days after nominations opened, the document states.
An SNP spokesperson said: "Following First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's announcement today, SNP [National Executive Committee] will agree a timetable for all SNP members to be able to choose a new party leader in line with the process set out in the SNP constitution. “
There’s nothing on the SNP website yet, as far as I can see.
‘Her successor does not need to come from the Scottish Parliament. When Salmond was elected as SNP leader for his first term – from 1990 to 2000 – he was the MP for Banff and Buchan.’
? How is that a precedent when the Scottish Parliament didn’t exist?
The first meeting of the new parliament was in May 1999, so I think the point that is being made is that Salmond did not have to step down to become be a member of the new body to keep the leadership between that date and his stepping down the subsequent year. Of course it doesn't take into account any rule changes that have happened subsequently as Holyrood has become firmly established.
Politico.com - The DNC Thought It Killed the Iowa Caucus. It's Not Dead Yet. Iowa Democrats are preparing to fight for their caucus — and their relevance as rural voters.
WATERLOO, Iowa – On the day the Democratic National Committee voted to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, a former congressman named Dave Nagle thumbed through a Rolodex full of faded contact cards at his desk on the seventh floor of an old department store building here.
Frost clung to the windows. Nagle knew what was coming. In Philadelphia, where the DNC met, everyone was writing Iowa’s obituary. And when the vote went as expected, his wife, Debi, who was following the proceedings on Twitter from the next room over, came to the door.
Nagle sighed.
“So,” he said, looking up from his desk. “It’s a war.”
For half a century, Iowa had gone first in the presidential nominating process, a fluke of the calendar that revolutionized the modern White House campaign. It was in Iowa that Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer and former governor of Georgia, catapulted himself to the presidency in 1976, demonstrating that even a relative nobody could make a name for himself here. The result was a quadrennial spectacle in which presidential candidates crammed into every corn- and soybean-sprouting inch of this small, rural state, transforming Iowa into the presidential campaign’s biggest stage.
But Democrats nationally had for years been tiring of Iowa, which had fallen out of step with the party’s diversifying base. Demographically, Iowa was too white; politically, it was becoming too red. President Joe Biden wanted to drop Iowa and put South Carolina first in the nominating process, and the outcome seemed inevitable.
Unlike in New Hampshire – whose early primary also was being pushed back, and where Democrats were protesting loudly — Iowa never looked like it had much of a leg to stand on. Democrats here had been embarrassed by a botched caucus in 2020, in which the flubbing of the presidential preference count was so severe that the Associated Press could not even declare a winner. They had few allies in Washington, and even fewer after the midterm elections, in which Democrats were swept out of all but one statewide executive office, auditor. Biden, if he runs for re-election as expected, is not likely even to compete here.
“It’s a wasteland,” one Democratic strategist told me. Iowa, he said, is one not-unlikely step from “becoming Idaho.”
Even in Iowa’s home-state media, it seemed as if the battle was over. . . .
But between the lines in all of that coverage, there was a sign that Iowa might not take the loss of its early caucuses lying down. . . .
I don't know how american political nerds follow it all, it seems far more complex and exhausting.
Some danger for the Democrats here, especially as the GOP are keeping Iowa as their first state to vote for their nominee.
'It’s true that Democrats don’t find much support in rural areas. In the 2020 election, Biden carried the nation’s cities and suburbs but lost rural America by 15 percentage points. But in a competitive state — and Iowa is bordered by two of them, Minnesota and Wisconsin — even marginal differences in the rural vote can tip an election. A rural Democrat in those states, or in Pennsylvania or Michigan, can see just as well as an Iowan where Democrats are or aren’t holding their early primaries, and draw judgments from that about where the party’s priorities lie.
Link, who has studied voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in 2016, said, “It’s not only our presidential interests that would benefit, but it would certainly make it easier to maintain a Senate majority if we could do somewhat OK in a rural state.”
“Nationally,” he said, “Democrats think that we should write off certain parts of the country and double down on other parts” — the latter being urban centers and their diversifying suburbs, the former being rural, white, non-college educated swaths of the country where Democrats have been losing in recent years.'
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
That reminds me, has anyone seen @HYUFD this evening? 0.0% of this evening’s posts have been from him. Hope he’s ok. Edit, he’s beaten me by one post! Typical!
Today is a very good day for Keir Starmer. No doubt about that.
Is it? I expect Labour to fall in the polls as some leftwingers go Green or DK post Corbyn's deselection. I also think Corbyn will win Islington North as an Independent.
Sturgeon's departure might be better news for him but depends on who replaces her
Though losing some votes in young lefty constituencies is fine if it picks up others elsewhere; Finchley f'rexample.
Bigger question is what the Diane Abbotts of this world do. Stick with Labour and shun Jez, or join him in the exit?
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
They're better, betas.
Two parts of the reason for the falling fertility rate are:
1) Smartphone addiction, especially by males but not only by them.
2) Normalisation of pornography.
And no government has the will to attack either of those problems.
Problem 1 was evident in a different form before smartphones in places in Asia such as South Korea where young men would gather in internet cafes - and possibly other venues, and possibly there would also do it at home - to play fantasoid video games during practically all the hours they weren't working or sleeping. Many young women even then who would have liked to hjave boyfriends thought if those idiots are all that's available, then f*** it, I'll stay single.
Problem 2 can mean that when she's finally got him to the bedroom, having allowed him to think that he was the one who got her there, he's got all this crap he saw on a screen going through his mind...
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
It is amusing hearing a Nat accuse other people of shagging flags - whenever I've been in Scotland in the last decade I saw the Saltire pretty much everywhere I looked. Anywhere remotely official, certainly.
And far, far more than you see Union flags in England.
Today's inflation numbers are a cause for some relief but it simply means prices are rising more slowly, not falling, and 10% inflation (especially if you get a 4-5% wage increase) is still a big drop in your living standards.
Prices fell in January (as they do most years). So for this month at least that statement isn't correct.
In truth "Inflation is falling and prices are rising" and "The deficit is falling and the debt is rising" are seen by many journalists and most people as impossible and counterintuitive. And this will never change.
The difference being people can see prices are rising when they do their shopping. Since it is impossible that inflation is therefore falling, they will refuse to believe it is.
Except prices did actually fall by an average of 0.6% in January when compared with December.
Cpih index down from 125.3 to 124.8
The key is the components which make up these and other indices.
You've got much more than just CPI and RPI - you have RPIX for example which is RPI less mortgage payments for example. The perception of inflation (as well as the reality) depends on where your exposure to it sits. IF you are mortgage free for example, indices including mortgage interest payments mean nothing whereas for those with larger mortgages it's of huge importance.
We all have to eat and drink but the proportion of income spent by individuals and families varies widely so indices which stress food prices will be of mixed relevance. Even within "food" there's the basics and the cost of eating out and again that will be different.
People may choose to believe or not prices fell in January and inflation is 10.1% but their experience and perception may not support the story the Government and its supporters would like us to believe.
Yes, it may be fuzzy but it comes down to feelings. During the coalition years when it looked like we might technically be in recession (I think later revisions meant we didn't) but things didn't feel that bad to many people. This time around it feels different, thanks to inflation no doubt, as loads of people who wouldn't normally feel a hit are being careful at least.
Was talking to our tame plumber (very precious beast). Orders for new boilers have dried up (sorry) considerably. People just not spending.
Yes, despite the waiting lists self-pay patients are down at the private hospital. This tends to be quite a sensitive economic pointer in my experience.
Keir Starmer will deliver the first Labour Government since 2010.
Are you saying you'd rather have the Tories?
Makes no difference two cheeks of the same arse as far as i am concerned
ToryJohnOwls
Sunil responsible for every Tory Policy for the last 6 yrs likes to call others Tories when the only reason he is an SKS fan is that he SKS is a Tory imitator
Tory enabler Sunil now supports enabling the Tory with the red rosette
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
They're better, betas.
Two parts of the reason for the falling fertility rate are:
1) Smartphone addiction, especially by males but not only by them.
2) Normalisation of pornography.
And no government has the will to attack either of those problems.
Problem 1) was evident in a different form before smartphones in places in Asia such as South Korea where young men would gather in internet cafes - and possibly other venues, and possibly there would also do it at home - to play fantasoid video games during practically all the hours they weren't working or sleeping. Many young women even then who would have liked to hjave boyfriends thought if those idiots are all that's available, then f*** it, I'll stay single.
And are all young women smartphone free, high IQ, glamourous and perfect? No.
The fact is too many expect too much from a perfect husband, in reality your spouse will not be perfect, it is a partnership that needs work from both ends to work
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
That reminds me, has anyone seen @HYUFD this evening? 0.0% of this evening’s posts have been from him. Hope he’s ok. Edit, he’s beaten me by one post! Typical!
Uncanny reverse causality on calling HYUFD into being there.
Today is a very good day for Keir Starmer. No doubt about that.
Is it? I expect Labour to fall in the polls as some leftwingers go Green or DK post Corbyn's deselection. I also think Corbyn will win Islington North as an Independent.
Sturgeon's departure might be better news for him but depends on who replaces her
Though losing some votes in young lefty constituencies is fine if it picks up others elsewhere; Finchley f'rexample.
Bigger question is what the Diane Abbotts of this world do. Stick with Labour and shun Jez, or join him in the exit?
Abbott could probably win her seat as an Independent too but I expect will stay Labour
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
It is amusing hearing a Nat accuse other people of shagging flags - whenever I've been in Scotland in the last decade I saw the Saltire pretty much everywhere I looked. Anywhere remotely official, certainly.
And far, far more than you see Union flags in England.
Sure
Playing the flag game is just dumb, people will easily be able to find examples of the other side standing front of flags, and their own, and we all know it, so what's the point?
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
That reminds me, has anyone seen @HYUFD this evening? 0.0% of this evening’s posts have been from him. Hope he’s ok. Edit, he’s beaten me by one post! Typical!
Uncanny reverse causality on calling HYUFD into being there.
Legend had it that if you say his name three times he will appear in your living room.
It's quite eery, but once the surprise wears off on both sides it probably leads to a good chat over a cup of tea.
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
It is amusing hearing a Nat accuse other people of shagging flags - whenever I've been in Scotland in the last decade I saw the Saltire pretty much everywhere I looked. Anywhere remotely official, certainly.
And far, far more than you see Union flags in England.
Sure
Playing the flag game is just dumb, people will easily be able to find examples of the other side standing front of flags, and their own, and we all know it, so what's the point?
Sorry, hard to resist when some fatuous gimp insists that they live in a miraculously flag averse zone. Invariably it turns out that they don’t mind a little surreptitious flag shagging themselves.
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
That reminds me, has anyone seen @HYUFD this evening? 0.0% of this evening’s posts have been from him. Hope he’s ok. Edit, he’s beaten me by one post! Typical!
Uncanny reverse causality on calling HYUFD into being there.
Legend had it that if you say his name three times he will appear in your living room.
It's quite eery, but once the surprise wears off on both sides it probably leads to a good chat over a cup of tea.
It’s uncanny! I just gave my statue of Margaret Thatcher a rub and he appears!
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
If Kate Forbes can be persuaded to take on the mantle it will move the SNP back to the centre or even centre right, basically where they were under Salmond. This would be a considerable opportunity for Scottish Labour but would be very tough for the Scottish Conservatives. Angus Robertson, the bookies favourite, is more continuity Sturgeon but without the charisma or the drive.
I doubt she would be able to. SNP is Woke Central and chained to the Greens who are fanatics.
Forbes is clearly very socially conservative on abortion and goodness knows what she really thinks about Gender Reform. She's Free Church. Likely to end badly, as per Farron's leadership of the LibDems.
There is no real reason though why the SNP need to be quite so chained to the Greens. It's one of the more slightly baffling elements of the whole thing.
Despite popular belief on PB, the SNP is a minority government. There aren't enough LDs to make a difference, the Tories are kryptonite, and Slab have - usually, but interestingly not on GRR - a policy of never cooperating with the SNP.
Unless Slab can hold together a coalition of SG, ScoTory and SLD, there is no other option given what the voters have decided.
Not really. They have half the seats. The motivation for giving the green loons any government influence remains obscure.
Loonies, I think you mean, rather than orra loons ... Do you really think so? That surprises me. It certainly helped stop them being decoyed into Edinburgh Trams style unionist wrecking.
Think the trams project is quite capable of wrecking all on its own, judging by what they've done on Leith Walk.
Looks like I will need to launch one final Scottish Expedition to capture the Leith tram extension later this year! But will probably combine it with the Bo'ness & Kinneil.
Calling at Reston? What about Inverness Airport?
Sunil is a Yellow Pen Merchant, not a Shack Scratcher.
Rail enthusiasm is a broad coalition.
Yellow Pen? Nah, just use a black biro the mark my Baker Atlas
Keir Starmer will deliver the first Labour Government since 2010.
Are you saying you'd rather have the Tories?
Makes no difference two cheeks of the same arse as far as i am concerned
ToryJohnOwls
Sunil responsible for every Tory Policy for the last 6 yrs likes to call others Tories when the only reason he is an SKS fan is that he SKS is a Tory imitator
Tory enabler Sunil now supports enabling the Tory with the red rosette
Well if Jezza can rally a left wing alternative party, stand them in just 150 seats he could deliver the Conservatives another decent majority. The Conservatives would be mad not to furtively fund such an enterprise.
He can do what Jezza does best, deliver Conservative majorities.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
They're better, betas.
Two parts of the reason for the falling fertility rate are:
1) Smartphone addiction, especially by males but not only by them.
2) Normalisation of pornography.
And no government has the will to attack either of those problems.
Problem 1) was evident in a different form before smartphones in places in Asia such as South Korea where young men would gather in internet cafes - and possibly other venues, and possibly there would also do it at home - to play fantasoid video games during practically all the hours they weren't working or sleeping. Many young women even then who would have liked to hjave boyfriends thought if those idiots are all that's available, then f*** it, I'll stay single.
And are all young women smartphone free, high IQ, glamourous and perfect? No.
The fact is too many expect too much from a perfect husband, in reality your spouse will not be perfect, it is a partnership that needs work from both ends to work
Some of us are just lucky HYUFD. Some of us are just lucky.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
They're better, betas.
Two parts of the reason for the falling fertility rate are:
1) Smartphone addiction, especially by males but not only by them.
2) Normalisation of pornography.
And no government has the will to attack either of those problems.
Problem 1) was evident in a different form before smartphones in places in Asia such as South Korea where young men would gather in internet cafes - and possibly other venues, and possibly there would also do it at home - to play fantasoid video games during practically all the hours they weren't working or sleeping. Many young women even then who would have liked to hjave boyfriends thought if those idiots are all that's available, then f*** it, I'll stay single.
And are all young women smartphone free, high IQ, glamourous and perfect? No.
The fact is too many expect too much from a perfect husband, in reality your spouse will not be perfect, it is a partnership that needs work from both ends to work
Many women lower their expectations as they get older, but most still want a decent bloke who will protect them and the children and not cheat on them. And a growing proportion look at the childish men who pick their phones all the time and who, when it comes down to it, may watch a lot of porn but aren't interested much in real live adult female people, and they think "agh - the hell with it, at least for a while". Who can blame them? Women like to attract interest and they're not receiving so much interest.
Keir Starmer will deliver the first Labour Government since 2010.
Are you saying you'd rather have the Tories?
Makes no difference two cheeks of the same arse as far as i am concerned
ToryJohnOwls
Sunil responsible for every Tory Policy for the last 6 yrs likes to call others Tories when the only reason he is an SKS fan is that he SKS is a Tory imitator
Tory enabler Sunil now supports enabling the Tory with the red rosette
Well if Jezza can rally a left wing alternative party, stand them in just 150 seats he could deliver the Conservatives another decent majority. The Conservatives would be mad not to furtively fund such an enterprise.
He can do what Jezza does best, deliver Conservative majorities.
Oh wait, I forgot he won in 2017.
Jezza's not going to rally an alternative party against Labour. He might go independent, not let them push him out without a fight, and he'll be urged to formally have another party, but at his age and given he's much more interested in his rallys and causes? Seems like a headache he could do without.
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
It is amusing hearing a Nat accuse other people of shagging flags - whenever I've been in Scotland in the last decade I saw the Saltire pretty much everywhere I looked. Anywhere remotely official, certainly.
And far, far more than you see Union flags in England.
Someone hasn't walked down the Strand lately. Makes me wanna boke.
Foxy - The Wikipedia biography of Carter is less clear on the subject than it ought to be (deliberately?), but here's my interpretation of what they do say: He served on two diesel electric subs, the USS Pomfret and the USS Barracuda. He did three months temporary duty at the "Naval Reactors Branch of the Atomic Energy Commission". He worked to clean up a spill at Chalk River. "In March 1953, Carter began nuclear power school, a six-month non-credit course covering nuclear power plant operation at the Union College in Schenectady." But he did not finish it, since he was released from the Navy to take over his family's peanut business, after his father's death. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career
Generally, it takes more time than that to make a nuclear physicist.
PBers celebratory coach trip to Glasgow was organised very quickly. The flag shagger wing obvs.
It is amusing hearing a Nat accuse other people of shagging flags - whenever I've been in Scotland in the last decade I saw the Saltire pretty much everywhere I looked. Anywhere remotely official, certainly.
And far, far more than you see Union flags in England.
Sure
Playing the flag game is just dumb, people will easily be able to find examples of the other side standing front of flags, and their own, and we all know it, so what's the point?
It's a long time since I lived in Glasgow, but is that how the SNP won themselves a slice of the working class Roman Catholic Labour voteshare - by telling people that not voting SNP was tantamount to giving in to the Orange Order and UDA?
That would make sense. Stimulating the same response to "Scotland is British" as many would exhibit to "Ulster is British".
There's no doubt the SNP have achieved remarkable success in Glasgow. It's still probably about to collapse like a house of cards though.
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
They're better, betas.
Two parts of the reason for the falling fertility rate are:
1) Smartphone addiction, especially by males but not only by them.
2) Normalisation of pornography.
And no government has the will to attack either of those problems.
Problem 1 was evident in a different form before smartphones in places in Asia such as South Korea where young men would gather in internet cafes - and possibly other venues, and possibly there would also do it at home - to play fantasoid video games during practically all the hours they weren't working or sleeping. Many young women even then who would have liked to hjave boyfriends thought if those idiots are all that's available, then f*** it, I'll stay single.
Problem 2 can mean that when she's finally got him to the bedroom, having allowed him to think that he was the one who got her there, he's got all this crap he saw on a screen going through his mind...
Why don't the government and other organisations ever talk about the subject of smartphone addiction?
Nice to see, but they should read Saul Alinsky. Don't just respond to sh*t. Initiate stuff and force the opponents to respond.
After 1994 when Blair and his pro-USA lot took over the Labour party, soon to praise Thatcher openly, the decent people who remained in the party on its left had practically zero fight in them. (There's a lesson there about bourgeois parliamentarism.)
Even when the position was reached (which was soon) that the majority of the members had joined the party only since Blair became leader, they still didn't realise or care much what had happened.
Perhaps their descendants will do at least a little bit better this time.
They could start by looking at the context of the smearing of Jeremy Corbyn with the utterly false allegation of anti-Semitism. (Clue: it's to do with the 2017 manifesto.)
What an eejut. An idiot who's opinion piece thesis is devoid of any rigorous argument.
With the benefit of hindsight and vaccination we could have done things differently and probably more efficiently. Nonetheless in the blind panic of a pandemic that was killing people by the thousands in its first days and weeks I believe governments across the world got their pragmatism about right. There is a Trumpian class narrative that pits Trump against Fauci. Right versus wrong, instinctive genius against science. This is another example of that.
For those who doubt that sensible measured governments got it about right under the circumstances, look no further than the cluster**** that was Jair Bolsonaro's Brasil.
Foxy - The Wikipedia biography of Carter is less clear on the subject than it ought to be (deliberately?), but here's my interpretation of what they do say: He served on two diesel electric subs, the USS Pomfret and the USS Barracuda. He did three months temporary duty at the "Naval Reactors Branch of the Atomic Energy Commission". He worked to clean up a spill at Chalk River. "In March 1953, Carter began nuclear power school, a six-month non-credit course covering nuclear power plant operation at the Union College in Schenectady." But he did not finish it, since he was released from the Navy to take over his family's peanut business, after his father's death. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career
Generally, it takes more time than that to make a nuclear physicist.
How much credit do you reckon it was worth, working under the beady eye of Admiral Hyman Rickover?
Thanks to AlistairM for that link to the Spectator graphs by Michael Simmons. I had been looking for data on Sturgeon's time in office and those covered all but one of the variables I was looking for.
The missing one? The total fertility rate in Scotland. " In 2020 the total fertility rate in Scotland was 1.29, the lowest it has been in this provided time period. From 2002 onwards the total fertility rate in Scotland increased from 1.47 to a peak of 1.76 in 2008. Since 2008 the total fertility rate in Scotland has fallen rapidly, with only a slight increase occurring between 2013 and 2014."
(I have come to the conclusion, in recent years, that the two most important measures of a government's performance, domestically, are changes in life expectancy, and the total fertility rate. This seems obvious to me now, but it did not, a decade or two ago.)
I'd bolden that bit in the middle if I knew how. A fall from 1.76 to 1.29 from 2008 to 2020 seems remarkable and bears further examination, I think.
Here's the longer view graph for England and Wales;
Presumably the big fall from '65 to '75 is the sexual revolution, the pill and all that. (Also, the big reason that children of boomers are going to struggle to pay the pensions of their parents.)
The smaller but significant fall from 2012 to 2020 is economy-related, isn't it? People not feeling that they can afford to have kids.
2020 was year of covid so may not be representative.
There was a good recent article in the Guardian on the subject. Income doesn't seem to be critical as TFR down includes even the wealthy, nor is it simply women putting careers first. In large part it is that there is a dearth of worthwhile partners to have children with.
@Foxy This article relies on the assumption that men are queuing up to marry women and have children. But actually a lot of them don't want to do it. I've got a large group of friends who are heading in to their 40's and have good careers etc, and own properties in London, and they just aren't getting married and having children. I've had quite a few discussions about this, and they would just rather not bring children in to the world if the relationship isn't correct. In the end, it is probably something to do with an increasing proportion of people having impossibly high standards for relationships, and over a certain amount of time, you just see these relationships going badly, messy divorces etc, and just think... no thanks. I think that, had I not met my wife, I would be the same as them.
One thing I am sure of, is that this problem is not going to be resolved by resorting to the default feminist position of 'blame men/empower women'. This type of thinking is almost certainly going to just make the problem worse. Actually, it may be that the writer of this piece should look in to her example of Iceland a bit more. Not only did Iceland offer generous parental support, they did a huge amount to support single mothers for many decades, both on a practical level and on a cultural level, but they are still stuck with the same problem of declining infertility.
Oh, I agree. It isn't just that many men are not cut out to be reliable life partners but many women too.
In many ways it is the extension of youth into adult life. We have generations of Peter Pans that refuse to grow up. Even older Gen X people like me still go to rock music festivals, and spend their time on Playstation etc. That refusal to grow up is both male and female, and an international phenomenon. People do not fancy the family life, at least not until too late.
Maybe you don't really need to grow up. There are lots of outdated stereotypes associated with family life. Men often have this need to fulfill a role as 'head of the household' and boss everyone around. Often women don't want that. You have to figure something out that works. It doesn't make you bad parents if you don't conform to traditional notions of family.
Certainly it is tragic when people want to have a family and it is too late, but I think this could also drive them in to having children with the wrong partner.
I find the racks of Father's Day cards particularly depressing. Presumably they sell so the companies making them do so, but they are an awful vision of fathers. Gardening, football, golf, motor cars and beer, it's like we have never left the 1950s.
Similarly greetings cards make out husbands to be useless about the house, unable to understand their spouses, and women feckless shoppers only interested in shopping, cakes and prosecco.
There is a grain of truth in all clichés, but it is all part of a general running down of relationships.
Perhaps we need to have a more positive image of men as fathers, like the classic Athena poster in the Eighties.
Father’s Day and older men birthday cards are a huge anachronism. I’m surprised anyone buys them. How many men these days play golf, wear colourful v neck jumpers and drive classic cars these days?
And I agree the useless around the house thing is classic negative patriarchy: bad for men, bad for women.
Dare I say that roles are becoming transgender? Roles that are traditionally male are being filled by women, and vice versa.
Yes, that is true. Nothing wrong with being a Beta male, indeed we make the best husband material.
They're better, betas.
Two parts of the reason for the falling fertility rate are:
1) Smartphone addiction, especially by males but not only by them.
2) Normalisation of pornography.
And no government has the will to attack either of those problems.
Problem 1 was evident in a different form before smartphones in places in Asia such as South Korea where young men would gather in internet cafes - and possibly other venues, and possibly there would also do it at home - to play fantasoid video games during practically all the hours they weren't working or sleeping. Many young women even then who would have liked to hjave boyfriends thought if those idiots are all that's available, then f*** it, I'll stay single.
Problem 2 can mean that when she's finally got him to the bedroom, having allowed him to think that he was the one who got her there, he's got all this crap he saw on a screen going through his mind...
Why don't the government and other organisations ever talk about the subject of smartphone addiction?
Three horse race for the title now. United right back in it.
United have some tough away games coming up: Liverpool, Newcastle, Brighton, and will also have a very congested end to the season if they progress in the Europa and FA cups.
It's a two-horse race imo.
Bet on the team which has lost the least by mid Feb. Which is, er [checks] Newcastle. At (gosh) 200-1. That seems astonishingly generous. I shall have a small nibble on that.
They've drawn more than they've won though.
Yes, I grant you that. But 200-1 for a team who doesn't lose, ten points behind in mid Feb. Strikes me as good value.
Keir Starmer will deliver the first Labour Government since 2010.
Are you saying you'd rather have the Tories?
Makes no difference two cheeks of the same arse as far as i am concerned
ToryJohnOwls
Sunil responsible for every Tory Policy for the last 6 yrs likes to call others Tories when the only reason he is an SKS fan is that he SKS is a Tory imitator
Tory enabler Sunil now supports enabling the Tory with the red rosette
Hah, I hadn’t realised that Starmer’s ‘it’s all that nasty man Corbyn’s fault’ speech was a 2 flagger!
Wasn’t there someone on here today deploring flag shaggers?
It is a few million usually Tory voters SKS needs. It will make little difference if flag burners and Momentum vote for the SWP, CP and SPGB instead of Richard Burgon's party.
Comments
For example, Cunninghame South has one branch based on the entire constituency. Cunninghame North has several branches, Skelmorlie, Largs, Garnock Valley, Cumbrae, Ardrossan and Arran.
So, for example, constitutionally no referendum can be legally binding on Parliament, because Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind its successors. However, one of the lessons of the 2019 UK GE is that the voters expect referendum results to be honoured by Parliament, and they will vote to ensure that this happens.
So the relevant question is not whether the constitution gives a legal mandate for a second referendum to a Holyrood majority, but whether the voters think it should. If the voters think it should then the Unionist parties, and the Union, will suffer from having that mandate blocked.
If the voters don't feel that they voted for the SNP and Greens to provide them with a mandate for a second referendum, then they're not going to be too bothered about having that claim to a mandate blocked.
The polling suggests that the voters aren't too bothered to be denied another independence referendum, and that's one reason why Sturgeon's strategy for independence has hit the buffers, but it's an important distinction to make.
Here's a description of his main business: "In 1951, the Carter Warehouse office was built on this location. Over the years the business grew to include a peanut shelling plant, a cotton gin and a processing plant."
source:"https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=73062
https://www.fifeheritagerailway.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadhills_and_Wanlockhead_Railway (not sure where it is at now)
I don’t share Jim’s rather ungenerous assessment. I think he was a far better president than given credit for, and had he been less unlucky might have won a second term.
Anyway, it's been an interesting day, but I'll call it at that given my early start in the morning. Hope all of PB land has a good evening, what remains of it.
It's worth walking along to the west for a short while and heading out along Granton breakwater. You get a distant view of all three Forth bridges from the end.
Rail enthusiasm is a broad coalition.
Diane Abbott says the root of @jeremycorbyn and @Keir_Starmer's division is because "in Jeremy’s heart of hearts, he’s a Brexiteer."
https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1625883538435235841
https://twitter.com/HalimaNyomi/status/1625958921004277761
Are you saying you'd rather have the Tories?
Should people give up reading fiction because that's essentially just childish make believe? Stop playing football with their mates (even as they get slower and slower, perhaps doing walking football) becames games are for kids?
It just sounds like snobbery. Hobbies do not make someone grown up or not. I do not doubt for a moment we all know some older people who do traditional 'grown up' things but are quite childish in their attitudes, and that many younger people can, in fact, be mature adults whilst also, gasp, playing a videogame from time to time.
People can certainly engage in those hobbies and do traditional grown up things like having families if they want. Seeing going to festivals and playing games as a refusal to grow up is working backwards from a conclusion, no different than any religious or cultural judging of others.
@USAmbKabul
Are Afghans familiar with #BlackGirlMagic and the movement it inspired? Do Afghan girls need a similar movement? What about Afghan Women? Teach me, ready to learn. #BlackHistoryMonth @Beyonce @lizzo @ReginaKing
https://twitter.com/USAmbKabul/status/1625808160614240258
I do though find it hard to believe she was that surprised at the way things went down. With Sindy support running riskily high, simply saying no and playing for time made sense as a strategy, even if it had the risk of entrenching support instead.
Even arse cheeks are not identical.
Sturgeon's departure might be better news for him but depends on who replaces her
He’s a spineless waste of space.
I passed through the site of Inverness Airport station in March 2020. Passed over the site by bus in July 2022 when I did Kyle and Wick/Thurso.
And far, far more than you see Union flags in England.
Does that make me a "Scotch Expert"? Hope so!
'It’s true that Democrats don’t find much support in rural areas. In the 2020 election, Biden carried the nation’s cities and suburbs but lost rural America by 15 percentage points. But in a competitive state — and Iowa is bordered by two of them, Minnesota and Wisconsin — even marginal differences in the rural vote can tip an election. A rural Democrat in those states, or in Pennsylvania or Michigan, can see just as well as an Iowan where Democrats are or aren’t holding their early primaries, and draw judgments from that about where the party’s priorities lie.
Link, who has studied voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in 2016, said, “It’s not only our presidential interests that would benefit, but it would certainly make it easier to maintain a Senate majority if we could do somewhat OK in a rural state.”
“Nationally,” he said, “Democrats think that we should write off certain parts of the country and double down on other parts” — the latter being urban centers and their diversifying suburbs, the former being rural, white, non-college educated swaths of the country where Democrats have been losing in recent years.'
Edit, he’s beaten me by one post! Typical!
Bigger question is what the Diane Abbotts of this world do. Stick with Labour and shun Jez, or join him in the exit?
1) Smartphone addiction, especially by males but not only by them.
2) Normalisation of pornography.
And no government has the will to attack either of those problems.
Problem 1 was evident in a different form before smartphones in places in Asia such as South Korea where young men would gather in internet cafes - and possibly other venues, and possibly there would also do it at home - to play fantasoid video games during practically all the hours they weren't working or sleeping. Many young women even then who would have liked to hjave boyfriends thought if those idiots are all that's available, then f*** it, I'll stay single.
Problem 2 can mean that when she's finally got him to the bedroom, having allowed him to think that he was the one who got her there, he's got all this crap he saw on a screen going through his mind...
The fact is too many expect too much from a perfect husband, in reality your spouse will not be perfect, it is a partnership that needs work from both ends to work
It's quite eery, but once the surprise wears off on both sides it probably leads to a good chat over a cup of tea.
He can do what Jezza does best, deliver Conservative majorities.
Oh wait, I forgot he won in 2017.
A Nuremberg rally sans the Fuhrer.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career
Generally, it takes more time than that to make a nuclear physicist.
That would make sense. Stimulating the same response to "Scotland is British" as many would exhibit to "Ulster is British".
There's no doubt the SNP have achieved remarkable success in Glasgow. It's still probably about to collapse like a house of cards though.
Kevin Bass"
https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-scientific-community-admit-we-were-wrong-about-coivd-it-cost-lives-opinion-1776630
Don't just respond to sh*t. Initiate stuff and force the opponents to respond.
After 1994 when Blair and his pro-USA lot took over the Labour party, soon to praise Thatcher openly, the decent people who remained in the party on its left had practically zero fight in them. (There's a lesson there about bourgeois parliamentarism.)
Even when the position was reached (which was soon) that the majority of the members had joined the party only since Blair became leader, they still didn't realise or care much what had happened.
Perhaps their descendants will do at least a little bit better this time.
They could start by looking at the context of the smearing of Jeremy Corbyn with the utterly false allegation of anti-Semitism. (Clue: it's to do with the 2017 manifesto.)
With the benefit of hindsight and vaccination we could have done things differently and probably more efficiently. Nonetheless in the blind panic of a pandemic that was killing people by the thousands in its first days and weeks I believe governments across the world got their pragmatism about right. There is a Trumpian class narrative that pits Trump against Fauci. Right versus wrong, instinctive genius against science. This is another example of that.
For those who doubt that sensible measured governments got it about right under the circumstances, look no further than the cluster**** that was Jair Bolsonaro's Brasil.
My own guess is - considerable.