Wonderful to see PBers in agreement that NI's Single Market access is excellent news for the wee country.
It's like Brexit never happened, and the next step is to extend the principle UK wide – clearly so-called 'Hard Leavers' have had a change of heart, which is great – great I say! – to see.
Welcome back guys.
Single market in goods was always acceptable to nearly all Leavers. But The Four Freedoms Are Indivisible.
Just out of interest, are these Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms you're talking about, or a different Four?
And - I can't help asking - if they're really indivisible, how is it that there are four of them?
The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too.
Northern Ireland voted Remain and borders the Irish Republic, GB voted Leave and borders the sea
Scotland also voted remain.
So did London, Liverpool and Manchester.
The problem for Scotland is that two years prior they declined to become an independent country so their votes are a subset of UK votes and not counted independently.
The same is true of Northern Ireland. The special arrangements there have the square root of sod all to do with how they voted in the referendum and are purely to do with the Good Friday Agreement. Scotland has no such agreement, so if it wants to be treated as an actual country it needs to actually become one, not go in via another country as NI does with the Republic.
I'm sure many people in Scotland will be drawing that conclusion. Especially now we know that "hard" trade borders can be finessed in various ways.
On current polls there will actually be almost as big a swing from SNP to Labour as Tory to Labour at the next election
None of the polls came after this agreement. You're not thinking it through.
When either the hapless Yousaf or Gilead Forbes succeed Sturgeon you can be sure the swing from the SNP will be even bigger.
Plus Northern Ireland only has an open border with GB as well as the EU now as it is still in the UK
We are talking about Scotland being in the UK as well as the EU. YOu know, if devomax really existed, it's the sort of thing the Scottish Government would jump at.
As OLB said: "The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too."
The EU aren't offering it.
Ireland is a country in the EU. NI gets the Single Market not due to their votes, regardless of how often HYUFD and others claim that as the reason, but due to Ireland being a member state.
If Scotland wants to be a member state it needs to become an actual country and accede instead of self identifying as a country.
Scotland is as much a country as Isla Bryson is a woman.
Which would then see a hard border between England and Scotland, the same as there would be a hard border in the Irish Sea again if Northern Ireland ever voted for a United Ireland (except with maybe county Antrim if the DUP then declared UDI)
Big deal, loads of borders across the world, people seem able to handle it.
Probably need Lorna Slater to roll out a few more schemes
The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too.
Northern Ireland voted Remain and borders the Irish Republic, GB voted Leave and borders the sea
Scotland also voted remain.
So did London, Liverpool and Manchester.
The problem for Scotland is that two years prior they declined to become an independent country so their votes are a subset of UK votes and not counted independently.
The same is true of Northern Ireland. The special arrangements there have the square root of sod all to do with how they voted in the referendum and are purely to do with the Good Friday Agreement. Scotland has no such agreement, so if it wants to be treated as an actual country it needs to actually become one, not go in via another country as NI does with the Republic.
I'm sure many people in Scotland will be drawing that conclusion. Especially now we know that "hard" trade borders can be finessed in various ways.
On current polls there will actually be almost as big a swing from SNP to Labour as Tory to Labour at the next election
None of the polls came after this agreement. You're not thinking it through.
When either the hapless Yousaf or Gilead Forbes succeed Sturgeon you can be sure the swing from the SNP will be even bigger.
Plus Northern Ireland only has an open border with GB as well as the EU now as it is still in the UK
We are talking about Scotland being in the UK as well as the EU. YOu know, if devomax really existed, it's the sort of thing the Scottish Government would jump at.
As OLB said: "The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too."
The EU aren't offering it.
Ireland is a country in the EU. NI gets the Single Market not due to their votes, regardless of how often HYUFD and others claim that as the reason, but due to Ireland being a member state.
If Scotland wants to be a member state it needs to become an actual country and accede instead of self identifying as a country.
Scotland is as much a country as Isla Bryson is a woman.
The trouble is, it is legalistic quibbling and sounds more and more like it. Like your trying to blame the Scots for the lies (with or without mens rea) of the No campaign.
Whose fault is it the Scots were taken out against their will?
They'll be even more furious.
Its the Scots fault they were taken out against their will, since they rejected the opportunity for self-determination.
Poor old England, not even having the balls to ask itself if it wanted self-determination.
Also too scared and cowardly to let poor old Scotland have another go as they would then be Bully No Mates.
Has Sunak's deal also solved the problem the SNP have long had about an independent Scotland being in the EU while England was not in it? No need for a hard border now. Just apply the NI solution.
Since UK law would cease to apply to an independent Scotland it's a completely different situation.
Or would an independent Scotland be obliged to follow UK regulations, under the jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court?
Scottish Law should be only law that applies in Scotland
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
RDS is basically the US Sunak, Trump now the US Boris and Biden the US Starmer
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
RDS is basically the US Sunak, Trump now the US Boris and Biden the US Starmer
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too.
Northern Ireland voted Remain and borders the Irish Republic, GB voted Leave and borders the sea
Scotland also voted remain.
So did London, Liverpool and Manchester.
The problem for Scotland is that two years prior they declined to become an independent country so their votes are a subset of UK votes and not counted independently.
The same is true of Northern Ireland. The special arrangements there have the square root of sod all to do with how they voted in the referendum and are purely to do with the Good Friday Agreement. Scotland has no such agreement, so if it wants to be treated as an actual country it needs to actually become one, not go in via another country as NI does with the Republic.
I'm sure many people in Scotland will be drawing that conclusion. Especially now we know that "hard" trade borders can be finessed in various ways.
On current polls there will actually be almost as big a swing from SNP to Labour as Tory to Labour at the next election
None of the polls came after this agreement. You're not thinking it through.
When either the hapless Yousaf or Gilead Forbes succeed Sturgeon you can be sure the swing from the SNP will be even bigger.
Plus Northern Ireland only has an open border with GB as well as the EU now as it is still in the UK
We are talking about Scotland being in the UK as well as the EU. YOu know, if devomax really existed, it's the sort of thing the Scottish Government would jump at.
As OLB said: "The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too."
The EU aren't offering it.
Ireland is a country in the EU. NI gets the Single Market not due to their votes, regardless of how often HYUFD and others claim that as the reason, but due to Ireland being a member state.
If Scotland wants to be a member state it needs to become an actual country and accede instead of self identifying as a country.
Scotland is as much a country as Isla Bryson is a woman.
I assume you have a carer , given your posts I cannot see how you could even dress yourself. Moronic cretin does not even begin to describe it.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
There are all kinds of hell waiting for Starmer and the next Labour government...
As nothing compared to the in-tray awaiting whichever performing monkey takes over from the organ grinder in Bute House
Humza will not win Scott
I hope you’re right, Malc, Does that mean that Murrell is no longer counting the votes?
Indeed
The SNP has appointed an independent firm to oversee its leadership election following criticism that Nicola Sturgeon’s husband is playing too central a role in the contest.
Peter Murrell, the party’s chief executive, has been under attack from members for his alleged oversight of the election contest, set in train by Sturgeon’s sudden resignation as SNP leader and first minister.
Alex Neil, who served as health secretary, said there was “a low level of confidence” in the party headquarters. He added: “It is not really acceptable that the SNP chief executive should be playing such a central role. I am not accusing anyone of anything but it is clear the party hierarchy have a preferred candidate.”
WE have seen previous votes by SNP using this independent firm, no votes ever published, only Murrell gets details and evidence people were allowed to have votes added after the vote finished. It will be a Russian style/banana republic vote if Murrell is running it.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Utter bollocks as usual. You don't even seem to understand they are choosing the leader of a political party not the FM.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Would make your business boom if Scotland had the same advantage. And right on time, the Graun feed has this:
'Alyn Smith MP, the SNP’s Europe and EU accession spokesperson, said:
"Rishi Sunak is moonlighting as a remainer as he perfectly outlines how Scotland will be at a competitive disadvantage under Westminster control and outside the European Union.
Northern Ireland voted to stay within the European Union and it is getting its wishes. However Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit but we are living with the economic consequences every single day.
Throughout the Brexit process the SNP Scottish government made sensible suggestions so Scotland’s choice could be respected by remaining inside the single market and customs union. Those proposals were thrown in the bin and Scotland was taken along for the ride as we were dragged out of Europe against our will."'
The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too.
Northern Ireland voted Remain and borders the Irish Republic, GB voted Leave and borders the sea
Scotland also voted remain.
So did London, Liverpool and Manchester.
The problem for Scotland is that two years prior they declined to become an independent country so their votes are a subset of UK votes and not counted independently.
The same is true of Northern Ireland. The special arrangements there have the square root of sod all to do with how they voted in the referendum and are purely to do with the Good Friday Agreement. Scotland has no such agreement, so if it wants to be treated as an actual country it needs to actually become one, not go in via another country as NI does with the Republic.
I'm sure many people in Scotland will be drawing that conclusion. Especially now we know that "hard" trade borders can be finessed in various ways.
On current polls there will actually be almost as big a swing from SNP to Labour as Tory to Labour at the next election
None of the polls came after this agreement. You're not thinking it through.
When either the hapless Yousaf or Gilead Forbes succeed Sturgeon you can be sure the swing from the SNP will be even bigger.
Plus Northern Ireland only has an open border with GB as well as the EU now as it is still in the UK
We are talking about Scotland being in the UK as well as the EU. YOu know, if devomax really existed, it's the sort of thing the Scottish Government would jump at.
As OLB said: "The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too."
The EU aren't offering it.
Ireland is a country in the EU. NI gets the Single Market not due to their votes, regardless of how often HYUFD and others claim that as the reason, but due to Ireland being a member state.
If Scotland wants to be a member state it needs to become an actual country and accede instead of self identifying as a country.
Scotland is as much a country as Isla Bryson is a woman.
Which would then see a hard border between England and Scotland, the same as there would be a hard border in the Irish Sea again if Northern Ireland ever voted for a United Ireland (except with maybe county Antrim if the DUP then declared UDI)
Big deal, loads of borders across the world, people seem able to handle it.
Probably need Lorna Slater to roll out a few more schemes
Back to your nursery we are talking grown up stuff here.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
Just listened to Sunak on R4. It's almost surreal, as others have said. His Tiggerish, boyish enthusiasm for NI's prospects now it has "the best of both worlds" by being in the UK and the EU Single Market does not sit comfortably with his being in favour of Brexit.
Of course I understand why he's doing it, but I can't help thinking that he risks over-egging the virtues of membership of the EU Single Market. If it's so great, then why.......?
My thoughts exactly, it can't have been an accident that he is eulogising about the benefits of the single market. He seems to be deliberately emphasising it. Maybe he has finally seen the error of his ways and we are taking baby steps back to economic sanity.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
RDS is basically the US Sunak, Trump now the US Boris and Biden the US Starmer
That means Wes Streeting is Pete Buttigieg and Angela Raynor is Kamala Harris.
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
To make an analogy, being in the EU is a bit like having a baby
You no longer get to think only of you, the smaller members of the family can be demanding and take what seems to be a disproportionate amount of time and support; you have to fit them into your plans too. It's messy, sometimes there's screaming and shit flying everywhere. But at the end of it, you look at what you have created and realise it's so much more than you were alone.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Would make your business boom if Scotland had the same advantage. And right on time, the Graun feed has this:
'Alyn Smith MP, the SNP’s Europe and EU accession spokesperson, said:
"Rishi Sunak is moonlighting as a remainer as he perfectly outlines how Scotland will be at a competitive disadvantage under Westminster control and outside the European Union.
Northern Ireland voted to stay within the European Union and it is getting its wishes. However Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit but we are living with the economic consequences every single day.
Throughout the Brexit process the SNP Scottish government made sensible suggestions so Scotland’s choice could be respected by remaining inside the single market and customs union. Those proposals were thrown in the bin and Scotland was taken along for the ride as we were dragged out of Europe against our will."'
The last bit is, unsurprisingly, complete nonsense. Single market plus customs union = EU membership. And Scotland is still part of Europe, unless it's been sawn off and towed to the middle of the Atlantic since I drove to Edinburgh in January.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Pig ignorance on Scotland and Scottish matters on display here as usual Carnyx. I never expect anything else on here.
You'd think some of them wanted to lose money on betting, equating the chances of becoming SNP leader with those of becoming FM. I can think of at least four possible problems with that (not mutually exclusive).
The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too.
Northern Ireland voted Remain and borders the Irish Republic, GB voted Leave and borders the sea
Scotland also voted remain.
So did London, Liverpool and Manchester.
The problem for Scotland is that two years prior they declined to become an independent country so their votes are a subset of UK votes and not counted independently.
The same is true of Northern Ireland. The special arrangements there have the square root of sod all to do with how they voted in the referendum and are purely to do with the Good Friday Agreement. Scotland has no such agreement, so if it wants to be treated as an actual country it needs to actually become one, not go in via another country as NI does with the Republic.
I'm sure many people in Scotland will be drawing that conclusion. Especially now we know that "hard" trade borders can be finessed in various ways.
On current polls there will actually be almost as big a swing from SNP to Labour as Tory to Labour at the next election
None of the polls came after this agreement. You're not thinking it through.
When either the hapless Yousaf or Gilead Forbes succeed Sturgeon you can be sure the swing from the SNP will be even bigger.
Plus Northern Ireland only has an open border with GB as well as the EU now as it is still in the UK
We are talking about Scotland being in the UK as well as the EU. YOu know, if devomax really existed, it's the sort of thing the Scottish Government would jump at.
As OLB said: "The more Sunak extols the virtues of Northern Ireland's single market membership, the harder it gets for him to explain why the rest of the UK shouldn't have it too."
The EU aren't offering it.
Ireland is a country in the EU. NI gets the Single Market not due to their votes, regardless of how often HYUFD and others claim that as the reason, but due to Ireland being a member state.
If Scotland wants to be a member state it needs to become an actual country and accede instead of self identifying as a country.
Scotland is as much a country as Isla Bryson is a woman.
The trouble is, it is legalistic quibbling and sounds more and more like it. Like your trying to blame the Scots for the lies (with or without mens rea) of the No campaign.
Whose fault is it the Scots were taken out against their will?
They'll be even more furious.
Its the Scots fault they were taken out against their will, since they rejected the opportunity for self-determination.
Poor old England, not even having the balls to ask itself if it wanted self-determination.
Also too scared and cowardly to let poor old Scotland have another go as they would then be Bully No Mates.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they told me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Would make your business boom if Scotland had the same advantage. And right on time, the Graun feed has this:
'Alyn Smith MP, the SNP’s Europe and EU accession spokesperson, said:
"Rishi Sunak is moonlighting as a remainer as he perfectly outlines how Scotland will be at a competitive disadvantage under Westminster control and outside the European Union.
Northern Ireland voted to stay within the European Union and it is getting its wishes. However Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit but we are living with the economic consequences every single day.
Throughout the Brexit process the SNP Scottish government made sensible suggestions so Scotland’s choice could be respected by remaining inside the single market and customs union. Those proposals were thrown in the bin and Scotland was taken along for the ride as we were dragged out of Europe against our will."'
The last bit is, unsurprisingly, complete nonsense. Single market plus customs union = EU membership. And Scotland is still part of Europe, unless it's been sawn off and towed to the middle of the Atlantic since I drove to Edinburgh in January.
Out of Europe = standard shorthand for outside the EU. Just look at any UK newspaper for the last 7 years.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
They are not interested Cranyx, they prefer to just lie and make up crap
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
To make an analogy, being in the EU is a bit like having a baby
You no longer get to think only of you, the smaller members of the family can be demanding and take what seems to be a disproportionate amount of time and support; you have to fit them into your plans too. It's messy, sometimes there's screaming an shit flying everywhere. But at the end of it, you look at what you have created and realise it's so much more than you were alone.
Yes. That's a terrific analogy in the right hands.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
RDS is basically the US Sunak, Trump now the US Boris and Biden the US Starmer
That means Wes Streeting is Pete Buttigieg and Angela Raynor is Kamala Harris.
Disappointing from you. Rayner, not Raynor. Starmor's Deputy?
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Would make your business boom if Scotland had the same advantage. And right on time, the Graun feed has this:
'Alyn Smith MP, the SNP’s Europe and EU accession spokesperson, said:
"Rishi Sunak is moonlighting as a remainer as he perfectly outlines how Scotland will be at a competitive disadvantage under Westminster control and outside the European Union.
Northern Ireland voted to stay within the European Union and it is getting its wishes. However Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit but we are living with the economic consequences every single day.
Throughout the Brexit process the SNP Scottish government made sensible suggestions so Scotland’s choice could be respected by remaining inside the single market and customs union. Those proposals were thrown in the bin and Scotland was taken along for the ride as we were dragged out of Europe against our will."'
The last bit is, unsurprisingly, complete nonsense. Single market plus customs union = EU membership. And Scotland is still part of Europe, unless it's been sawn off and towed to the middle of the Atlantic since I drove to Edinburgh in January.
Who is this new clown , trying to make Bart Simpson seem intelligent by the looks of it.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they told me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
Cannot count either given SNP is a minority in Holyrood. Are you coherent at anything.
Murrells obviously don't think Humza Useless can be seen by general public and survive...
SNP leadership hustings will be closed to press and public SNP officials have revealed only party members will be able to watch husting events across Scotland.
This afternoon, party HQ said members needed “a safe space” for debate and for that reason, the nine hustings will be closed to both the public and press.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they told me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
Cannot count either given SNP is a minority in Holyrood. Are you coherent at anything.
More coherent than you, apparently, since I never claimed that the SNP had a Holyrood majority.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
Well (and I’m only telling you my view for clarity, because I don’t expect to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree) my view is that we are, economically better off out. Or rather, in the medium to long term, and considering British individuals, and particularly those in the lower and middle quintiles, taking into account the risks and rewards and opportunities and threats of both remaining and leaving, the risks/rewards of leaving look more favourable than the risks/rewards of leaving. Monte-Carloing it, if you will. There are some futures which play out on both the Remain and Leave side which are very good or very bad for British people, though most futures are somewhere in the middle (and in most futures the impacts of Brexit are dwarfed by the impacts of both Covid and Ukraine). My view is that in most economic analyses of Brexit the risks of remaining are understated and the opportunities of leaving are understated.
Anyway – on your second point – you are right: I would look at that and my instinctive reaction would be ‘that’s no way to run a continent’. I would see more threat in those people having a say in my life than opportunity in my politicians being able to have a say in other Europeans’ lives.
And it’s not an aversion to Europe per se. I have a kind of 1960s idealism about Europe. The Italian Job, If it’s Tuesday it Must be Belgium, Monte Carlo or Bust. I grew up thinking how great it would be if Europe was a country. But my view is that European politics doesn’t work to the advantage of its member states’ populations. I have a further view that that failure is baked into the nature of Europe as a multilingual bloc of dozens of divergent cultures – hell, we have a difficult enough job sharing a union with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish – but that is much more contestable and more interesting.
Has Sunak's deal also solved the problem the SNP have long had about an independent Scotland being in the EU while England was not in it? No need for a hard border now. Just apply the NI solution.
Since UK law would cease to apply to an independent Scotland it's a completely different situation.
Or would an independent Scotland be obliged to follow UK regulations, under the jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court?
Scottish Law should be only law that applies in Scotland
Scheme which needs an exemption is launched without asking for or obtaining an exemption, and the entity that wasn’t asked for (and thus hasn’t granted) the exemption should bear the losses caused by the absence of that exemption. Sure, Mhairi. Sure.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they told me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
Cannot count either given SNP is a minority in Holyrood. Are you coherent at anything.
More coherent than you, apparently, since I never claimed that the SNP had a Holyrood majority.
Cheer up. We've all had a taste of the MalcolmG wit, which is pretty surprising given he has so little to spare. A nasty man, and the sort of poster that discourages discourse.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they told me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
Cannot count either given SNP is a minority in Holyrood. Are you coherent at anything.
More coherent than you, apparently, since I never claimed that the SNP had a Holyrood majority.
Cheer up. We've all had a taste of the MalcolmG wit, which is pretty surprising given he has so little to spare. A nasty man, and the sort of poster that discourages discourse.
Meh. At least he sometimes agrees with people, I can think of several posters who do more damage to the community BTL than he does.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
RDS is basically the US Sunak, Trump now the US Boris and Biden the US Starmer
That means Wes Streeting is Pete Buttigieg and Angela Raynor is Kamala Harris.
Disappointing from you. Rayner, not Raynor. Starmor's Deputy?
Oh dear, that is bad. My one weak excuse - I was too busy concentrating on getting 'Buttigieg' right.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
Anyway, I can’t compete with Tramadol & Asian lark’s tongues for my holidays but I know we all like a wee travel quiz. Who’s this snappily dressed chap? Clue: Bülowstradße.
Edit: Apols for sideways pic, a bug of phone posting it appears.
Good one. He’s in a boxing gym of some kind. The dress says 1900-30s. The demeanor suggests Ireland and the Irish
A famous Irish writer of some kind? Too young and macho to be Yeats. It’s not Joyce. Tricky
God i dunno. Without Googling. Brendan Behan? Synge?
Today I announce my #ActionPlan to enhance transparency, accountability, and accessibility of our beloved SNP; while modernising the party's infrastructure to increase its efficiency and effectiveness.
Sorry to be mean, but I think we have long past the "get over it" stage on Covid stats.
I'm not tracking this because of COVID. It's the non-COVID figures that are interesting. I reckon quite a lot of people held off doing Christmas properly in 2021-22 so Christmas 2022-23 was like a big bang leading to a lot of nasty stuff (COVID included) spreading like wildfire.
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as their baby remains missing.
The aristocrat and her partner Mark Gordon were arrested in Brighton on Monday on suspicion of child neglect after several weeks avoiding the police, but the child was not with them.
Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford said: “I can confirm that they were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect.
“I can now confirm that they have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and that they remain in custody at police stations in Sussex.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
You’re missing the whole point.
The point is that being in the single market is being lauded as a benefit, even if it is a “tiny fraction”.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
You’re missing the whole point.
The point is that being in the single market is being lauded as a benefit, even if it is a “tiny fraction”.
Which, of course, it is a benefit.
No it isn’t. Being in (some parts of) both at once is being claimed as an obvious benefit. It does not follow that being in the whole EU single market alone is better than not being in it. What part of that don’t you understand?
NB: Also - yes, a plurality of leavers would have gone for being in select parts of the single market with a veto on future laws. If you can get the EU to offer that I’ll vote for it tomorrow.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
You’re missing the whole point.
The point is that being in the single market is being lauded as a benefit, even if it is a “tiny fraction”.
Which, of course, it is a benefit.
No it isn’t. Being in (some parts of) both at once is being claimed as an obvious benefit. It does not follow that being in the whole EU single market alone is better than not being in it. What part of that don’t you understand?
NB: Also - yes, a plurality of leavers would have gone for being in select parts of the single market with a veto on future laws. If you can get the EU to offer that I’ll vote for it tomorrow.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
Sorry to be mean, but I think we have long past the "get over it" stage on Covid stats.
I'm not tracking this because of COVID. It's the non-COVID figures that are interesting. I reckon quite a lot of people held off doing Christmas properly in 2021-22 so Christmas 2022-23 was like a big bang leading to a lot of nasty stuff (COVID included) spreading like wildfire.
Fair enough, and thanks for the reply, but then I think that speaks to a wider point about the damaging way the ordeal of the pandemic has made people come to obsess about such things. It seems to me that it's not great for our mental health, and indeed hampers our ability to lead a normal life. Too many have come to see the Great Out There as a threat. Progress is being made, yet I still spotted a woman a couple of days ago walking up an empty street, on her own, in a mask. I worry what is going on inside her head, and the minds of those like her.
Sorry to be mean, but I think we have long past the "get over it" stage on Covid stats.
I'm not tracking this because of COVID. It's the non-COVID figures that are interesting. I reckon quite a lot of people held off doing Christmas properly in 2021-22 so Christmas 2022-23 was like a big bang leading to a lot of nasty stuff (COVID included) spreading like wildfire.
Fair enough, and thanks for the reply, but then I think that speaks to a wider point about the damaging way the ordeal of the pandemic has made people come to obsess about such things. It seems to me that it's not great for our mental health, and indeed hampers our ability to lead a normal life. Too many have come to see the Great Out There as a threat. Progress is being made, yet I still spotted a woman a couple of days ago walking up an empty street, on her own, in a mask. I worry what is going on inside her head, and the minds of those like her.
TBF she might have been going to the dentist. That's a common explanation here. It's certainly the only time I wear a mask - because I am en route to the dentist.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
Has anyone asked Ursula whether a similar package could be extended to the other three countries in the UK and, if it is possible, what we need to do to make it happen?
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
You’re missing the whole point.
The point is that being in the single market is being lauded as a benefit, even if it is a “tiny fraction”.
Which, of course, it is a benefit.
No it isn’t. Being in (some parts of) both at once is being claimed as an obvious benefit. It does not follow that being in the whole EU single market alone is better than not being in it. What part of that don’t you understand?
NB: Also - yes, a plurality of leavers would have gone for being in select parts of the single market with a veto on future laws. If you can get the EU to offer that I’ll vote for it tomorrow.
It clearly is better though. Objectively.
Well, yes, being a part of select (to use a phrase, “cherry picked”) parts of the EU with a veto on any change is the ideal, obviously. No one would argue on that. It’s also irrelevant…
Sorry to be mean, but I think we have long past the "get over it" stage on Covid stats.
I'm not tracking this because of COVID. It's the non-COVID figures that are interesting. I reckon quite a lot of people held off doing Christmas properly in 2021-22 so Christmas 2022-23 was like a big bang leading to a lot of nasty stuff (COVID included) spreading like wildfire.
Fair enough, and thanks for the reply, but then I think that speaks to a wider point about the damaging way the ordeal of the pandemic has made people come to obsess about such things. It seems to me that it's not great for our mental health, and indeed hampers our ability to lead a normal life. Too many have come to see the Great Out There as a threat. Progress is being made, yet I still spotted a woman a couple of days ago walking up an empty street, on her own, in a mask. I worry what is going on inside her head, and the minds of those like her.
TBF she might have been going to the dentist. That's a common explanation here. It's certainly the only time I wear a mask - because I am en route to the dentist.
Why not simply put it on when you arrive? Would you wear a mask on your way to a masked ball?
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Brexiteers are still frothing about the EU years after we left. It’s something to behold.
Do you really think that? If so I’d advise you to take a step back and consider your biases. It seems to me that the EU only ever enters the debate in the context of some wanting to join it and saying that would be better than being out. There’s no other need to mention it.
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
Well (and I’m only telling you my view for clarity, because I don’t expect to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree) my view is that we are, economically better off out. Or rather, in the medium to long term, and considering British individuals, and particularly those in the lower and middle quintiles, taking into account the risks and rewards and opportunities and threats of both remaining and leaving, the risks/rewards of leaving look more favourable than the risks/rewards of leaving. Monte-Carloing it, if you will. There are some futures which play out on both the Remain and Leave side which are very good or very bad for British people, though most futures are somewhere in the middle (and in most futures the impacts of Brexit are dwarfed by the impacts of both Covid and Ukraine). My view is that in most economic analyses of Brexit the risks of remaining are understated and the opportunities of leaving are understated.
Anyway – on your second point – you are right: I would look at that and my instinctive reaction would be ‘that’s no way to run a continent’. I would see more threat in those people having a say in my life than opportunity in my politicians being able to have a say in other Europeans’ lives.
And it’s not an aversion to Europe per se. I have a kind of 1960s idealism about Europe. The Italian Job, If it’s Tuesday it Must be Belgium, Monte Carlo or Bust. I grew up thinking how great it would be if Europe was a country. But my view is that European politics doesn’t work to the advantage of its member states’ populations. I have a further view that that failure is baked into the nature of Europe as a multilingual bloc of dozens of divergent cultures – hell, we have a difficult enough job sharing a union with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish – but that is much more contestable and more interesting.
You don't say so here but I think at the heart of this is a view that the EU is tracking with speed to become a Superstate, dissolving its constituent parts without the consent of the people. If I thought that I'd be a bit spooked, but I don't. IMO this is far far away as a realistic prospect, if it is at all. Bailing out now for fear of that is to me like staying in on a sunny day because it might rain.
But to change the subject before this all goes too weighty, The Italian Job - that reminds me of The Gold, which I've just finished. Terrific drama. One of the best I've seen for a while. So brave and original to cast it without Ray Winstone. My only quibble was the (imo) rather strained attempt to freight the villains with working class hero status, fighting the good fight against The Establishment. I don't buy all that.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
Has anyone asked Ursula whether a similar package could be extended to the other three countries in the UK and, if it is possible, what we need to do to make it happen?
It’s completely at odds with what they are trying to build and their three freedoms. It’s rude to even ask. We have no interest in stopping them doing their thing now. Quite the opposite actually - it’s in our interest for their union to accelerate now.
There might be something in separate arrangements via the continental project Macron proposed, mind.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
Has anyone asked Ursula whether a similar package could be extended to the other three countries in the UK and, if it is possible, what we need to do to make it happen?
It’s completely at odds with what they are trying to build and their three freedoms. It’s rude to even ask. We have no interest in stopping them doing their thing now. Quite the opposite actually - it’s in our interest for their union to accelerate now.
There might be something in separate arrangements via the continental project Macron proposed, mind.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
Has anyone asked Ursula whether a similar package could be extended to the other three countries in the UK and, if it is possible, what we need to do to make it happen?
It’s completely at odds with what they are trying to build and their three freedoms. It’s rude to even ask. We have no interest in stopping them doing their thing now. Quite the opposite actually - it’s in our interest for their union to accelerate now.
There might be something in separate arrangements via the continental project Macron proposed, mind.
This is my favourite 'reason' so far!!
Sigh…. The internet…. I was trying to be polite - if you want me to be brutally honest then what I mean is that only someone with no concept of what the EU is and who has never sat down with anyone who works in the institutions would propose what you have above.
It’s like asking the US if they haven’t considered a federal ban on guns. It cuts across a fundamental constitutional issue and shows a lack of understanding of the institution.
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as their baby remains missing.
The aristocrat and her partner Mark Gordon were arrested in Brighton on Monday on suspicion of child neglect after several weeks avoiding the police, but the child was not with them.
Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford said: “I can confirm that they were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect.
“I can now confirm that they have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and that they remain in custody at police stations in Sussex.
Now I’m no Sherlock Holmes but I don’t understand why, when a member of the public spotted the couple and reported to the police, the police didn’t watch and see if the baby was with them and if not, as the case appears, then maybe follow them and check if they go “home” to where they might have left the baby rather than just picking them up there and then.
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as their baby remains missing.
The aristocrat and her partner Mark Gordon were arrested in Brighton on Monday on suspicion of child neglect after several weeks avoiding the police, but the child was not with them.
Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford said: “I can confirm that they were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect.
“I can now confirm that they have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and that they remain in custody at police stations in Sussex.
Now I’m no Sherlock Holmes but I don’t understand why, when a member of the public spotted the couple and reported to the police, the police didn’t watch and see if the baby was with them and if not, as the case appears, then maybe follow them and check if they go “home” to where they might have left the baby rather than just picking them up there and then.
You have great faith in the police's surveillance abilities...
Although sometimes it does rain, of course, despite the forecast. So take a brolly or a light cagoule. Don't just stay in.
I'm not convinced by the weather analogy, at least until I see a Weather God who tells me that they want to make it rain.
No, it's not the greatest. Can you do a better one?
To precisely illustrate this - stopping doing something nice for fear of something happening that (i) won't happen for ages if at all and (ii) even if it did look like happening you'd have the chance to take evasive action at the time.
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as their baby remains missing.
The aristocrat and her partner Mark Gordon were arrested in Brighton on Monday on suspicion of child neglect after several weeks avoiding the police, but the child was not with them.
Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford said: “I can confirm that they were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect.
“I can now confirm that they have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and that they remain in custody at police stations in Sussex.
Comments
But I am not sorry at this verdict.
(reference from 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36300892)
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
https://tinyurl.com/24hznwbu
Non-COVID excess deaths below 200 for the first time since last April (excluding bank holiday weeks).
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
07-Oct-22 | 9,835 | 400 | 10,807 | 972
14-Oct-22 | 10,091 | 565 | 11,134 | 1,043
21-Oct-22 | 10,224 | 687 | 11,251 | 1,027
28-Oct-22 | 10,013 | 651 | 10,594 | 581
04-Nov-22 | 10,278 | 650 | 11,145 | 867
11-Nov-22 | 10,743 | 518 | 11,020 | 277
18-Nov-22 | 10,786 | 423 | 11,156 | 370
25-Nov-22 | 10,705 | 348 | 11,135 | 430
02-Dec-22 | 10,725 | 317 | 10,990 | 265
09-Dec-22 | 11,007 | 326 | 11,368 | 361
16-Dec-22 | 11,203 | 390 | 11,999 | 796
23-Dec-22 | 12,037 | 429 | 14,101 | 2,064
30-Dec-22 | 7,925 | 393 | 9,124 | 1,199
06-Jan-23 | 12,037 | 739 | 14,244 | 2,207
13-Jan-23 | 13,749 | 922 | 16,459 | 2,710
20-Jan-23 | 13,098 | 781 | 15,023 | 1,925
27-Jan-23 | 12,562 | 579 | 13,588 | 1,026
03-Feb-23 | 12,108 | 499 | 12,913 | 805
10-Feb-23 | 11,794 | 446 | 12,226 | 432
17-Feb-23 | 11,586 | 416 | 11,766 | 180
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
'Alyn Smith MP, the SNP’s Europe and EU accession spokesperson, said:
"Rishi Sunak is moonlighting as a remainer as he perfectly outlines how Scotland will be at a competitive disadvantage under Westminster control and outside the European Union.
Northern Ireland voted to stay within the European Union and it is getting its wishes. However Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit but we are living with the economic consequences every single day.
Throughout the Brexit process the SNP Scottish government made sensible suggestions so Scotland’s choice could be respected by remaining inside the single market and customs union. Those proposals were thrown in the bin and Scotland was taken along for the ride as we were dragged out of Europe against our will."'
You no longer get to think only of you, the smaller members of the family can be demanding and take what seems to be a disproportionate amount of time and support; you have to fit them into your plans too. It's messy, sometimes there's screaming and shit flying everywhere. But at the end of it, you look at what you have created and realise it's so much more than you were alone.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
(fair warning: twitch chat is suggesting questions, so it’s a tad edgy. Probably nsfw)
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
SNP leadership hustings will be closed to press and public
SNP officials have revealed only party members will be able to watch husting events across Scotland.
This afternoon, party HQ said members needed “a safe space” for debate and for that reason, the nine hustings will be closed to both the public and press.
Or rather, in the medium to long term, and considering British individuals, and particularly those in the lower and middle quintiles, taking into account the risks and rewards and opportunities and threats of both remaining and leaving, the risks/rewards of leaving look more favourable than the risks/rewards of leaving. Monte-Carloing it, if you will. There are some futures which play out on both the Remain and Leave side which are very good or very bad for British people, though most futures are somewhere in the middle (and in most futures the impacts of Brexit are dwarfed by the impacts of both Covid and Ukraine). My view is that in most economic analyses of Brexit the risks of remaining are understated and the opportunities of leaving are understated.
Anyway – on your second point – you are right: I would look at that and my instinctive reaction would be ‘that’s no way to run a continent’. I would see more threat in those people having a say in my life than opportunity in my politicians being able to have a say in other Europeans’ lives.
And it’s not an aversion to Europe per se. I have a kind of 1960s idealism about Europe. The Italian Job, If it’s Tuesday it Must be Belgium, Monte Carlo or Bust. I grew up thinking how great it would be if Europe was a country. But my view is that European politics doesn’t work to the advantage of its member states’ populations. I have a further view that that failure is baked into the nature of Europe as a multilingual bloc of dozens of divergent cultures – hell, we have a difficult enough job sharing a union with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish – but that is much more contestable and more interesting.
Scheme which needs an exemption is launched without asking for or obtaining an exemption, and the entity that wasn’t asked for (and thus hasn’t granted) the exemption should bear the losses caused by the absence of that exemption. Sure, Mhairi. Sure.
https://twitter.com/roddyqc/status/1630586307813490688
Today I announce my #ActionPlan to enhance transparency, accountability, and accessibility of our beloved SNP; while modernising the party's infrastructure to increase its efficiency and effectiveness.
📄 voteAshRegan.com/snp-action-pla…
#voteAshRegan as Leader
https://twitter.com/ashregansnp/status/1630600315232825345
Just not at the hustings…
Unionists versus Nationalists would have avoided any confusion
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as their baby remains missing.
The aristocrat and her partner Mark Gordon were arrested in Brighton on Monday on suspicion of child neglect after several weeks avoiding the police, but the child was not with them.
Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford said: “I can confirm that they were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect.
“I can now confirm that they have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and that they remain in custody at police stations in Sussex.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/23351222.live-search-constance-martens-baby-brighton/
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
The point is that being in the single market is being lauded as a benefit, even if it is a “tiny fraction”.
Which, of course, it is a benefit.
NB: Also - yes, a plurality of leavers would have gone for being in select parts of the single market with a veto on future laws. If you can get the EU to offer that I’ll vote for it tomorrow.
Also no wonder councils are hard up if they can piss money like this away?
Coventry city of culture trust enters administration
Trust responsible for overseeing legacy projects received £1m loan from city council in October
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/28/coventry-city-of-culture-trust-enters-administration
(It must be a horrible experience to be in a hyper-inflationary economy.)
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1630621715461029890?s=61&t=xxXKb-nPXLJ_rHKMfM8IUw
But to change the subject before this all goes too weighty, The Italian Job - that reminds me of The Gold, which I've just finished. Terrific drama. One of the best I've seen for a while. So brave and original to cast it without Ray Winstone. My only quibble was the (imo) rather strained attempt to freight the villains with working class hero status, fighting the good fight against The Establishment. I don't buy all that.
There might be something in separate arrangements via the continental project Macron proposed, mind.
It’s like asking the US if they haven’t considered a federal ban on guns. It cuts across a fundamental constitutional issue and shows a lack of understanding of the institution.
It would be news if those greedy, work-shy layabouts WEREN'T going on strike.
To precisely illustrate this - stopping doing something nice for fear of something happening that (i) won't happen for ages if at all and (ii) even if it did look like happening you'd have the chance to take evasive action at the time.