Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
The answer to this seems really obvious to me. Any geographical area has every right to seek independence as long as its independence wouldn't cause absurdity to its neighbours. That is, it must be capable of stable self-governance, of controlling its internal affairs without parasitism on the surrounding community.
What do I mean by this? Simply that if a majority of people in an area want independence and can sustain themselves without making claims on their neighbours, then it must be allowed.
Examples: Scotland, obviously. There are plenty of independent countries smaller and poorer than Scotland that get by just fine. Scottish independence would not pose special burden on England. We would be able to have a social, defence, foreign policy, transport and hygiene infrastructure, police, judicial, medical services and all the rest of it. The relevant question is, would they be better and do people want it, not whether it's even possible at all. Christiania: no. It's a tiny area, which doesn't really have an economy beyond a couple of cafes and a lot of drug pushers who don't even live there. The commune is car-free... so all the people who live there just park in the neighbouring streets. It has no means to provide itself water or sewerage systems and is wholly parasitic on the Danish state. Therefore it doesn't matter whether a majority there think it should be independent. It would be too great a burden on the Danish state to allow it.
As for Cornwall or other county-sized geographies... this is at the interface of viability. I think, for example, Shetland could do it. So as far as I'm concerned its none of my business. But if Turriff & District wanted to go its own way then it would be too burdensome on Troupe or Central Buchan for it to be allowed.
If you want a precise red line that says here is ok, 1mm that way is silly, then you won't get it. This isn't an exact science. But that shouldn't put us off from saying that yes, Scottish or Shetland independence is a matter of preference, whereas independence for numbers 22-38 Cambourne Grove is obviously silly.
If it takes 96 fairly incoherent paragraphs to express your answer, as here, I suggest your answer is not “really obvious”
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
It's abundantly clear that there has been essentially no planning for scrapping HS2 or what to do with the funds released (assuming you even buy that view of things). It's a lazy and dishonest way to go about governing even if you agree with the intent.
Also, what about rectification of the groundworks, and fulfilment of environmental promises?
It is high time that so-called Sir Keir Starmer told the country how he plans to fix his mess. And which of the amazing Network North programs he will cancel to pay for these so-called "environmental promises"?
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
It's abundantly clear that there has been essentially no planning for scrapping HS2 or what to do with the funds released (assuming you even buy that view of things). It's a lazy and dishonest way to go about governing even if you agree with the intent.
Also, what about rectification of the groundworks, and fulfilment of environmental promises?
Edxit: ignore, may not be an issue for the north of Brum element. But still one for OOC-Euston if that falls through.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
The answer to this seems really obvious to me. Any geographical area has every right to seek independence as long as its independence wouldn't cause absurdity to its neighbours. That is, it must be capable of stable self-governance, of controlling its internal affairs without parasitism on the surrounding community.
What do I mean by this? Simply that if a majority of people in an area want independence and can sustain themselves without making claims on their neighbours, then it must be allowed.
Examples: Scotland, obviously. There are plenty of independent countries smaller and poorer than Scotland that get by just fine. Scottish independence would not pose special burden on England. We would be able to have a social, defence, foreign policy, transport and hygiene infrastructure, police, judicial, medical services and all the rest of it. The relevant question is, would they be better and do people want it, not whether it's even possible at all. Christiania: no. It's a tiny area, which doesn't really have an economy beyond a couple of cafes and a lot of drug pushers who don't even live there. The commune is car-free... so all the people who live there just park in the neighbouring streets. It has no means to provide itself water or sewerage systems and is wholly parasitic on the Danish state. Therefore it doesn't matter whether a majority there think it should be independent. It would be too great a burden on the Danish state to allow it.
As for Cornwall or other county-sized geographies... this is at the interface of viability. I think, for example, Shetland could do it. So as far as I'm concerned its none of my business. But if Turriff & District wanted to go its own way then it would be too burdensome on Troupe or Central Buchan for it to be allowed.
If you want a precise red line that says here is ok, 1mm that way is silly, then you won't get it. This isn't an exact science. But that shouldn't put us off from saying that yes, Scottish or Shetland independence is a matter of preference, whereas independence for numbers 22-38 Cambourne Grove is obviously silly.
If it takes 96 fairly incoherent paragraphs to express your answer, as here, I suggest your answer is not “really obvious”
Ok, try this:
"Can you dispose of your own trash and run enough hospitals?" If yes, you decide. If no, tough luck.
I added all the careful detail for your benefit because, from my lofty 148.971 IQ, I knew your pathetic 148.962 IQ wouldn't be able to interpolate all the details.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
It's abundantly clear that there has been essentially no planning for scrapping HS2 or what to do with the funds released (assuming you even buy that view of things). It's a lazy and dishonest way to go about governing even if you agree with the intent.
Also, what about rectification of the groundworks, and fulfilment of environmental promises?
It is high time that so-called Sir Keir Starmer told the country how he plans to fix his mess. And which of the amazing Network North programs he will cancel to pay for these so-called "environmental promises"?
Oh, the Bristol metro £100m can go ...
Re the issue sinvolved, those makie interesting reading
'Like many other people and landowners who have witnessed the reality of the HS2 juggernaut on the ground, he has been astonished by the apparent incompetence and waste of taxpayers’ money.
When protesters took up residence in a nearby wood – which was not actually in the line of HS2 – HS2 sent in security. “It wasn’t just 10 or 20, but 200 security who looked like paramilitaries. They fenced in the protesters, and ambulances and climbing crews and diggers sat there waiting outside for about 30 days.”
HS2 also put security with dogs in Whitmore Wood, an ancient woodland that he owns, “and completely failed to ask us if this was OK,” he said.
Although construction work had not begun on the 2a section from the West Midlands to Crewe, HS2 had been undertaking advanced environmental mitigation works.
According to Cavenagh-Mainwaring, they took one of his best wildflower meadows, told him it was of low environmental value and sprayed swaths of it with weedkiller so they could build two ponds for great-crested newts. The meadow was on sandstone, one of the drier areas of the farm, and they had to bring in articulated lorry-loads of water on to the site to fill the ponds.
“I could have showed them where to put newt ponds – where there is low-lying land with water – but they never asked,” he said. “I find it extraordinary that I don’t think I’ve ever been asked for advice by them when I’ve spent my life farming the land here.
“I can’t describe the amount of wasted money that locals have to watch,” he said. “The contractors aren’t interested in a simple solution – it’s not a big earner. It’s about an engineering solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.'
Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
In that scenario, malc, do you think Alba have a chance to really burst through as a force for indy. I always get the feeling the SNP are comfy as they are and keen to advocate indy on the one side while not actively going after it.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Britain isn't a nation - it is several. That is the problem. Either we accept and respect that there are 4 nations (and other mini nations like the Kernow) or we scrap all of it and reform ourselves as a single entity.
Scotland is distinct from England is distinct from Wales etc etc. If they are distinct enough to have their own laws, education systems, football leagues, international sporting representation etc then they are distinct enough to become a clearly defined national group in a way that none of your other examples are.
But what if a majority of people in Cornwall or Northumberland or Shetland feel they ARE a nation and want independence? Who are you to stop them?
Let them. For a state to work in the medium to long term it has to be the natural expression of the settled will of the majority of its people. The UK worked for a long time because it was that expression. Now it seems that the individual countries are becoming a better expression of that will and as such the UK will probably dissolve in the next 50 years.
If, in the future, another part of England or Scotland felt that those countries were no longer 'of use' then the same process would hopefully happen. The alternative is people being forced to live under an artificial construct they hold no loyalty or love for. Or worse actively hate.
The same applies the other way round of course. If the settled will of the people of Europe (the people not the politicians) is for a country called Europe then that is what should be created.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.
Only thing I'll add is that inertia is a powerful force in democratic politics. Cornwall, Northumberland and Shetland are most likely to vote simply on national political lines, not for independence. If they are so aggrieved or otherwise concerned that they do vote for independence, that vote should be respected.
Obviously that can't go down to the individual household level. Bob at Number 72 can't declare UDI. But for already defined democratic regions that have a vote democratically and independence is the will of the majority in a clear election? That's different.
So after chapping (according to them) thousands of doors, having dozens of southern Lab MPs press the Rutherglen flesh, unleashing the 20 watt Starmer charisma and benefitting from several thousand tactical Tory votes, SLab received fewer votes in this constituency than they did in every election this century, including the two they lost? I guess it indicates the lukewarm ceiling of Labour support in Scotland. The more interesting questions are how many indy/SNP supporters sat on their hands, and if/when they might stop doing so.
SNP supporters will stop sitting on their hands when the SNP stop embracing Green policies.
Yes this is just a warning shot. Will depend if there are any real SNP people left on the payroll, not just family and friends of the woke green grifters. We may welll see many of the old labour grifters drifting back if they think Labour will get seats as well. Will be interesting to see how it goes , so much rubbish to be cleared out of the SNP that it will not be quick. Hard to see anyone in there that could do the necessary clean out.
Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
In that scenario, malc, do you think Alba have a chance to really burst through as a force for indy. I always get the feeling the SNP are comfy as they are and keen to advocate indy on the one side while not actively going after it.
There's probably a lesson here in how the SNP operates. It cares more about the 'image' of Scotland - that Visit Scotland happy-clappy saltire-waving tartan nonsense - than it does the actual nuts-and-bolts of running the country.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
My back aches, just thinking about it.
Glad to see that DfT Wazzocks are always right DfT: We have to have these unpadded ironing-board seats for fire protection Actual Rail Professionals: no, we have this padding which is much comfier and compliant DfT: Those seats are against the law ARP: What law? DfT: the law of ENGLAND etc
In a sense, the by-election simply reflects a result to 'normal' - governments often get a kicking in by-elections whether they go on to win or lose, and in this by-election voting Labour allowed voters to kick two governments at once.
The real story is how the SNP, despite having run Scotland for so long, have managed to defy political gravity and its usual rules.
Of course, the election also represents a huge boost to Labour morale, sets the narrative for the coming GE in Scotland as Labour v SNP (despite Labour's current just two seats), and goes a long way to neutralise the card the Tories have previously managed to play against Labour of scaremongering about the SNP holding the balance. With nationalism apparently on the retreat, English voters will be harder to worry about the possible break-up of the UK. So in those ways it is important, rather than because of the swing.
edit/ and having typed that, Prof Curtice is now on R4 making the same point!
Nationalism is far from on the retreat and Westminster is unimportant for Scotland. Holyrood is where it matters and where independence will be decided.
Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
Good morning Malc
Dire day for the SNP and Sky forecasting the SNP and Scon on 6 seats each at the next GE is astonishing
Whilst I will not vote for Starmer, he is heading into no 10 next year and both the SNP and conservatives into an internal civil war with many years in opposition depending on the path they choose to follow
Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
In that scenario, malc, do you think Alba have a chance to really burst through as a force for indy. I always get the feeling the SNP are comfy as they are and keen to advocate indy on the one side while not actively going after it.
There's probably a lesson here in how the SNP operates. It cares more about the 'image' of Scotland - that Visit Scotland happy-clappy saltire-waving tartan nonsense - than it does the actual nuts-and-bolts of running the country.
It's not exactly a great future for the Union, though, with HS2 cancelled. That is going to be more important in the long run.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
Prediction - he has until the next GE.
If the next GE is a disaster, there is no way they’ll let him be leader for the Scottish Parliament election. Whilst the SNP love to be able to demonstrate their hegemony by returning lots of MPs to Westminster, the one they really care about is staying at power at Holyrood. Yousaf will not be allowed to jeopardise that.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
That is too passive. The Union cannot rely just on the status quo, it must show that it is relevant and adds to the lives of all of the parts of the polity, including Scotland. The weakness of Unionism was that this was ignored for too long. A situation where Scottish Labour MPs give Labour a UK majority is something of a sweet spot in such scenarios and fundamentally undermines the moans of Nats who complain that we get Tory governments from the Union that few Scots (well, actually about 20%) have voted for.
Westminster Labour governments are no better for Scotland than Tory ones David. They are cheeks of the same arse and we are a colony either way.
So after chapping (according to them) thousands of doors, having dozens of southern Lab MPs press the Rutherglen flesh, unleashing the 20 watt Starmer charisma and benefitting from several thousand tactical Tory votes, SLab received fewer votes in this constituency than they did in every election this century, including the two they lost? I guess it indicates the lukewarm ceiling of Labour support in Scotland. The more interesting questions are how many indy/SNP supporters sat on their hands, and if/when they might stop doing so.
SNP supporters will stop sitting on their hands when the SNP stop embracing Green policies.
If that’s the case why is Alba entirely incapable of making a breakthrough, or do you think Rutherglen will be a catalyst for this? Fwiw I believe they didn’t put up a candidate for R&HW for no other reason than justified fear of humiliation.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
It didn't fix that issue. It creates a whole bunch of other ones, that are worse.
One of the things that a PM in trouble has tried to threaten their internal opponents with is a GE. Your change would codify that threat into the constitution. It would make it much harder, and less likely, that a failing PM would be replaced. That would be a retrograde step.
We elect individuals as MPs. Not party drones. Not homunculi for the party leader. If the situation changes I expect MPs to react to the change and support a new PM.
In a sense, the by-election simply reflects a result to 'normal' - governments often get a kicking in by-elections whether they go on to win or lose, and in this by-election voting Labour allowed voters to kick two governments at once.
The real story is how the SNP, despite having run Scotland for so long, have managed to defy political gravity and its usual rules.
Of course, the election also represents a huge boost to Labour morale, sets the narrative for the coming GE in Scotland as Labour v SNP (despite Labour's current just two seats), and goes a long way to neutralise the card the Tories have previously managed to play against Labour of scaremongering about the SNP holding the balance. With nationalism apparently on the retreat, English voters will be harder to worry about the possible break-up of the UK. So in those ways it is important, rather than because of the swing.
edit/ and having typed that, Prof Curtice is now on R4 making the same point!
Nationalism is far from on the retreat and Westminster is unimportant for Scotland. Holyrood is where it matters and where independence will be decided.
The evidence seems to point in the opposite direction, malky. Ok, it's one by-election, but if nationalism WAS on the retreat, THIS is what it would look like.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
Utter bollox, the UK is NOT a nation and the 2 partners in the union should be free to decide what they do in regard to that union. The ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking.
I am still curious as to whether the government will have to pay financial penalties for cancelling HS2 contracts.
And, if so, to whom?
Being reported that the bill will be Hundreds of Millions to the various consortia already contracted. We have been presented with a succession of WE MUST BUILD HS2 tweets from Tory ministers now saying that we must not build it. I expect those same lying grifters will try and blame Starmer. How could he get us into this mess and how will HE fix it?
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
Hey, I'm not going to excuse the DfT and the IET disaster (started, of course, under Brown). But it's naive to think that the DfT and treasury did not have heavy inputs into the specifications, even in BR days. BR could not just build what they wanted, even if the funding was available.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Britain isn't a nation - it is several. That is the problem. Either we accept and respect that there are 4 nations (and other mini nations like the Kernow) or we scrap all of it and reform ourselves as a single entity.
Scotland is distinct from England is distinct from Wales etc etc. If they are distinct enough to have their own laws, education systems, football leagues, international sporting representation etc then they are distinct enough to become a clearly defined national group in a way that none of your other examples are.
But what if a majority of people in Cornwall or Northumberland or Shetland feel they ARE a nation and want independence? Who are you to stop them?
Let them. For a state to work in the medium to long term it has to be the natural expression of the settled will of the majority of its people. The UK worked for a long time because it was that expression. Now it seems that the individual countries are becoming a better expression of that will and as such the UK will probably dissolve in the next 50 years.
If, in the future, another part of England or Scotland felt that those countries were no longer 'of use' then the same process would hopefully happen. The alternative is people being forced to live under an artificial construct they hold no loyalty or love for. Or worse actively hate.
The same applies the other way round of course. If the settled will of the people of Europe (the people not the politicians) is for a country called Europe then that is what should be created.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.
Only thing I'll add is that inertia is a powerful force in democratic politics. Cornwall, Northumberland and Shetland are most likely to vote simply on national political lines, not for independence. If they are so aggrieved or otherwise concerned that they do vote for independence, that vote should be respected.
Obviously that can't go down to the individual household level. Bob at Number 72 can't declare UDI. But for already defined democratic regions that have a vote democratically and independence is the will of the majority in a clear election? That's different.
So any shire or county, then? Or any well defined region like the northwest? Or London? Can London declare UDI? It can certainly afford to and it would be richer than almost any other European nation per capita, and it is democratically self governing
Its all utter nonsense and doesn’t withstand a moment of scrutiny
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
My back aches, just thinking about it.
Glad to see that DfT Wazzocks are always right DfT: We have to have these unpadded ironing-board seats for fire protection Actual Rail Professionals: no, we have this padding which is much comfier and compliant DfT: Those seats are against the law ARP: What law? DfT: the law of ENGLAND etc
Why I’m sceptical about the support for nationalisation - people just want a reliable, useful and affordable network, which we were reasonably close to from the late 90s to mid-2010s (or at least, close enough to tolerable that nobody was seriously calling for renationalising rail).
I travel trans-pennine and Manc to London a lot for work. My lived experience of this is that of considerable decline particularly over the last 3-4 years.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
Sir Kid Starver fans a bit excitable about last nights total shoe in Election
Of course Corbyn also won this back in 2017
Meanwhile no money for free school meals but money for supervised tooth brushing in schools more or less sums SKS Party up.
Let them eat toothpaste
I can understand why you are so upset. The continuation of Tory government - the dream of the hard left - really looks like it is up. Perhaps you could help out by parroting their spin lines for a bit - HY is a little on his own these days as the spin lines are so preposterous.
I am still curious as to whether the government will have to pay financial penalties for cancelling HS2 contracts.
And, if so, to whom?
Being reported that the bill will be Hundreds of Millions to the various consortia already contracted. We have been presented with a succession of WE MUST BUILD HS2 tweets from Tory ministers now saying that we must not build it. I expect those same lying grifters will try and blame Starmer. How could he get us into this mess and how will HE fix it?
With contracts signed u pto a week ago. And contractors already occupying land even before then.
A special trap:
"If HS2 decides to sell the land again, he will be given first option to buy it back but that will be a struggle because he has to pay capital gains tax on the money he has received."
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
That is too passive. The Union cannot rely just on the status quo, it must show that it is relevant and adds to the lives of all of the parts of the polity, including Scotland. The weakness of Unionism was that this was ignored for too long. A situation where Scottish Labour MPs give Labour a UK majority is something of a sweet spot in such scenarios and fundamentally undermines the moans of Nats who complain that we get Tory governments from the Union that few Scots (well, actually about 20%) have voted for.
I don’t disagree. I was merely pointing out that the UK also has rights of self determination as a whole nation. Which it is
And that is as it should be, because if Scotland ever did secede that would massively impact everyone else in Britain. Mainly for the worse in economic terms, at first, as it would guarantee chaos and investors would flee
Happily, last night’a result means Sindy is a very distant prospect. It won’t be revisited this decade at least (but yes, this is not an excuse for complacency)
More utter bollox , do you not have a reef to investigate
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Cue spitfires and Land of Hope and Glory, FFS what are you on.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
Hey, I'm not going to excuse the DfT and the IET disaster (started, of course, under Brown). But it's naive to think that the DfT and treasury did not have heavy inputs into the specifications, even in BR days. BR could not just build what they wanted, even if the funding was available.
Sure! But lets look at the Class 700 and the Class 319s they replaced. The 319s weren't perfect, but they managed to have seats you could sit in and tables you could work on. Even BR management couldn't get that bit wrong.
I make no comment about the political desirability or otherwise of the outcome, but I note that: a) the prediction above makes for a very pretty map. b) the SNP continue to hold almost all of the very prettiest bits of Scotland.
In a sense, the by-election simply reflects a result to 'normal' - governments often get a kicking in by-elections whether they go on to win or lose, and in this by-election voting Labour allowed voters to kick two governments at once.
The real story is how the SNP, despite having run Scotland for so long, have managed to defy political gravity and its usual rules.
Of course, the election also represents a huge boost to Labour morale, sets the narrative for the coming GE in Scotland as Labour v SNP (despite Labour's current just two seats), and goes a long way to neutralise the card the Tories have previously managed to play against Labour of scaremongering about the SNP holding the balance. With nationalism apparently on the retreat, English voters will be harder to worry about the possible break-up of the UK. So in those ways it is important, rather than because of the swing.
edit/ and having typed that, Prof Curtice is now on R4 making the same point!
Holyrood is where it matters and where independence will be decided.
Well, it’s where the A9 is not getting dualed for starters. Someone say “Ferries” at the back?
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The problem with Sunak is he was deemed more acceptable by the chattering classes.....who aren't ever going to vote for him.
If he wanted to be acceptable to "the chattering classes" then he needed to drop the Culture War stuff. He did the opposite.
He is trying to poison British politics, and thoroughly deserves electoral humiliation.
This might reflect my stupidity but I really cannot tell what Rishi Sunak and the government more widely are trying to do, let alone which voters they are chasing.
I posted similarly. On here, they appear to have captured only the votes of their fanboys @biggwales and @Mexicanpete - it is scarcely a formula for victory,
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
Utter bollox, the UK is NOT a nation and the 2 partners in the union should be free to decide what they do in regard to that union. The ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking.
You had yer chance to leave in 2014. Unfortunately for you, alone amongst self respecting nations, the Scots proved too cowardly and feeble to seek independence and preferred continued submission to the colonial yoke of Mother England
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
No it isn't. Your obsession with anti-wokery makes you blinkered to the real lesson, whether left or right:
All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When I heard the SNP representative on the radio this morning, rolling out the usual excuses - bad circumstances, unusual by-election, weather, wrong kind of voters etc - they sounded awfully familiar.
Then i realised I was listening to a party of the establishment and power, which is running out of road. Like so many others.
SNP exceptionalism - where they liked to proclaim unique virtue. Not so much.
I make no comment about the political desirability or otherwise of the outcome, but I note that: a) the prediction above makes for a very pretty map. b) the SNP continue to hold almost all of the very prettiest bits of Scotland.
Fair points. But the Pentlands is also lovely so expect Joanna Cherry to hang onto her seat.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
The answer to this seems really obvious to me. Any geographical area has every right to seek independence as long as its independence wouldn't cause absurdity to its neighbours. That is, it must be capable of stable self-governance, of controlling its internal affairs without parasitism on the surrounding community.
What do I mean by this? Simply that if a majority of people in an area want independence and can sustain themselves without making claims on their neighbours, then it must be allowed.
Examples: Scotland, obviously. There are plenty of independent countries smaller and poorer than Scotland that get by just fine. Scottish independence would not pose special burden on England. We would be able to have a social, defence, foreign policy, transport and hygiene infrastructure, police, judicial, medical services and all the rest of it. The relevant question is, would they be better and do people want it, not whether it's even possible at all. Christiania: no. It's a tiny area, which doesn't really have an economy beyond a couple of cafes and a lot of drug pushers who don't even live there. The commune is car-free... so all the people who live there just park in the neighbouring streets. It has no means to provide itself water or sewerage systems and is wholly parasitic on the Danish state. Therefore it doesn't matter whether a majority there think it should be independent. It would be too great a burden on the Danish state to allow it.
As for Cornwall or other county-sized geographies... this is at the interface of viability. I think, for example, Shetland could do it. So as far as I'm concerned its none of my business. But if Turriff & District wanted to go its own way then it would be too burdensome on Troupe or Central Buchan for it to be allowed.
If you want a precise red line that says here is ok, 1mm that way is silly, then you won't get it. This isn't an exact science. But that shouldn't put us off from saying that yes, Scottish or Shetland independence is a matter of preference, whereas independence for numbers 22-38 Cambourne Grove is obviously silly.
If it takes 96 fairly incoherent paragraphs to express your answer, as here, I suggest your answer is not “really obvious”
Obvious to intelligent people, only part I disagree with is Shetland would not be viable in any possible way.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
you could hav estopped after "popular"
I’m pretty intrigued where the SCONs are going to end up.
Me maw lives in D&G, which has flopped around red yellow and blue over the years - the Tory vote is solid but folk shift between SLAB and SNP.
The feeling on the mean streets of Gatehouse, Tongland and Dalbeattie though is that Yousless is indeed useless and the Sturgeon SNP was a grift. Honestly I think it’ll stay blue, but with a strong showing for Labour.
Sir Kid Starver fans a bit excitable about last nights total shoe in Election
Of course Corbyn also won this back in 2017
Meanwhile no money for free school meals but money for supervised tooth brushing in schools more or less sums SKS Party up.
Let them eat toothpaste
Free school meals (which I support) may well happen under Labour in due course. Everyone knows they can't have policies before the election that can be exploited by the ruling party that bankrupted the country and raised tax to record levels as 'Labour's tax bombshell'.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
Utter bollox, the UK is NOT a nation and the 2 partners in the union should be free to decide what they do in regard to that union. The ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking.
You had yer chance to leave in 2014. Unfortunately for you, alone amongst self respecting nations, the Scots proved too cowardly and feeble to seek independence and preferred continued submission to the colonial yoke of Mother England
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Kent’s population, at 1.8 million people, is roughly the same as the population of Latvia, and significantly greater than that of Estonia (1.3m), Cyprus (1.2m) and Malta (0.5m). It has been an independent Kingdom within recorded history. It has excellent transport links with the whole of Europe, a decent agricultural base, and a tourism base. It also had, until 1925, it’s own law of property separate to the rest of England (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind)
Of course it’s an absurd thought. Kent is never going to seek independence but if it did it has as much right to do so as, say, Slovenia (never been a unified independent state prior to the break up of Yugoslavia) or Belgium (culturally Dutch and French, similarly never previously been independent).
In a sense, the by-election simply reflects a result to 'normal' - governments often get a kicking in by-elections whether they go on to win or lose, and in this by-election voting Labour allowed voters to kick two governments at once.
The real story is how the SNP, despite having run Scotland for so long, have managed to defy political gravity and its usual rules.
Of course, the election also represents a huge boost to Labour morale, sets the narrative for the coming GE in Scotland as Labour v SNP (despite Labour's current just two seats), and goes a long way to neutralise the card the Tories have previously managed to play against Labour of scaremongering about the SNP holding the balance. With nationalism apparently on the retreat, English voters will be harder to worry about the possible break-up of the UK. So in those ways it is important, rather than because of the swing.
edit/ and having typed that, Prof Curtice is now on R4 making the same point!
Holyrood is where it matters and where independence will be decided.
Well, it’s where the A9 is not getting dualed for starters. Someone say “Ferries” at the back?
There will never be independence under the current lot, just a case of how much longer they have to stuff their pockets.
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
So let's apply the toilet sieve.
You know one male trans person (presumably FTM?). Does this person poo in the men's loos or the women's loos? Do you approve of their choice?
You know one female trans person (presumably MTF?). Does this person poo in the men's loos or the women's loos? Do you approve of their choice?
Because ultimately this is what it all boils down to.
(I'm not sure which pronouns you use for trans people so I'll guess. You're gender critical so you may be using the TIM/TIF convention. I'm old school so I use the MTF/FTM convention. If you referred to the MTF as male and the FTM as female you'll have to point it out)
One is male with dysphoria. Married. One is a lesbian with dysphoria. My lesbian friend uses the woman's loo. She has gender dysphoria. She is not a man and does not consider herself one. She struggles with her dysphoria but has learnt to live with it and is very glad that she grew up before the push to tell boyish girls that they should be transitioned into boys as opposed to just being non-conforming girls. I have heard this from other lesbian friends of mine who don't fit a stereotypical and rather old-fashioned view of what a girl should be.
I have a lot of sympathy with this myself. I was not at all a girly girl growing up but had a lot of Italian female relatives very intent on turning me into just such a person, against which I rather rebelled.
She looks very mannish to some. I can't see it myself as I think she has a lovely warm face. But she has been challenged sometimes in women's loosand is perfectly fine with this because she understands why some women might do this. She considers it wrong to make women worried about doing this.
When I talk to them I use their names. It is perfectly obvious how I talk about them. The only other trans person I know is a lawyer at a firm I have worked with. Male to female and has done the whole surgical transition. Quite a few years ago now. Supported by the firm and no-one bats an eyelid. Quite a good lawyer too. Admire the bravery. It cannot be easy doing it. There is a colleague in my husband's chambers also. He simply wears women's clothes from time to time. He has not changed his name or anything. So no idea whether he would consider himself trans.
The only point I would make is that none of them are in any way supportive of the moves to take away women's rights to single sex spaces/ services / associations. They just want to be left to get on with their lives. An ambition I fully support.
Why then are so many male trans activists so determined to attack women and their rights?
Ah, I see, you are being circumlocutous. You use the word "trans" to describe "a person with dysphoria", which is not how most people would use it ("somebody who is or has transitioned"). But going with your usage, you answered one question but not the other and then introduced two other cases. So returning to my original question and expanding it thus
The person born male with dysphoria. I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
The person born female with dysphoria (the lesbian). I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to. Boys' loos or girls' loos? (You answered this one - girls' loos)
The person born male who transitioned (the male to female) at the firm you have worked with. I guess from your description that they were born male, had their willy sliced off, and now says they're a woman at work. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
The person born male who crossdresses. I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to either. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
The reason why I'm banging on about this point (sorry) is that it is the crux of the matter. People on PB talk endlessly on this subject but never get to the point.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
Hey, I'm not going to excuse the DfT and the IET disaster (started, of course, under Brown). But it's naive to think that the DfT and treasury did not have heavy inputs into the specifications, even in BR days. BR could not just build what they wanted, even if the funding was available.
Sure! But lets look at the Class 700 and the Class 319s they replaced. The 319s weren't perfect, but they managed to have seats you could sit in and tables you could work on. Even BR management couldn't get that bit wrong.
Indeed. But BR was managing a declining network; because of lack of paths on busy lines amongst other reasons, it's important to cram as many people into every train as possible. As the DfT and treasury have been getting more control, so does the need to squeeze every penny out of every train - and that means squeezing more passengers onto every train.
The Covid pandemic has given them just the excuse they need, sadly.
I've been crying out about the stupidity of the IEP project as long as I've been on here - and before they entered service! Brown's government has a lot to answer for over that mess...
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The problem with Sunak is he was deemed more acceptable by the chattering classes.....who aren't ever going to vote for him.
If he wanted to be acceptable to "the chattering classes" then he needed to drop the Culture War stuff. He did the opposite.
He is trying to poison British politics, and thoroughly deserves electoral humiliation.
This might reflect my stupidity but I really cannot tell what Rishi Sunak and the government more widely are trying to do, let alone which voters they are chasing.
I posted similarly. On here, they appear to have captured only the votes of their fanboys @biggwales and @Mexicanpete - it is scarcely a formula for victory,
It is quite amusing that you infer that @Mexicanpete is a fan boy of Sunak when he clearly is not, and you do not seem to recognise how easily he winds you up
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Kent’s population, at 1.8 million people, is roughly the same as the population of Latvia, and significantly greater than that of Estonia (1.3m), Cyprus (1.2m) and Malta (0.5m). It has been an independent Kingdom within recorded history. It has excellent transport links with the whole of Europe, a decent agricultural base, and a tourism base. It also had, until 1925, it’s own law of property separate to the rest of England (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind)
Of course it’s an absurd thought. Kent is never going to seek independence but if it did it has as much right to do so as, say, Slovenia (never been a unified independent state prior to the break up of Yugoslavia) or Belgium (culturally Dutch and French, similarly never previously been independent).
Nice one Doug. Are you a Kentish man or a man of Kent?
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Sadly with the Tories promoting a back to basics campaign where us sexual deviants can rightly be called out, her views will be less of an issue. And to be fair to her she was much clearer than the Toryphobes that her views were personal and not remotely relevant to national policy.
In 2015 I was a young Conservative Intern who helped a relatively unknown Prospective Parliamentary Candidate get elected in North Yorkshire with 27,744 votes.
In the past people have got more conservative as they aged. This was because they built up assets, became a home owner, created a family, had a great stake in society and stability.
That’s not happening as much these days, so why should people be getting more conservative?
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Yes. This has been an interesting phenomenon, for it is classically a personal moral issue outside party politics thing. No-one worries about senior politicians who are Roman Catholics always voting against abortion (including leftie Labour folk like Rebecca Long Bailey). And no-one thinks an RC can't be leader/PM. Do they?
Identifying the difference is not obvious or easy.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE · 1h the fiscal drag on this occasion is set to raise as much money as a rise in the headline rate of income tax of more than 5p in the £
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Forbes’ inability to square the faith circle was the main reason I couldn’t vote for her in the leadership election. Unfortunately since then she seems to have retreated into portraying any questions on how religion might affect her political decision making as an attack on her faith, not a great look. Allied with Forbes taking up the cause of the rubicose Fergus means je ne regrette rien.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
Institutions, constitutions and systems matter, but ultimately they are strengthened and weakened by the actions of individuals who work within them.
One of the strengths of both the UK and US systems over the centuries has been that many individuals working within them have put their belief in the institution as more important than their personal aggrandisement. Both systems are now creaking at the seams because this is no longer the case.
I would like to see MPs act with more independence, and have weaker PMs, but when we saw that with Brexit and May, MPs completely fluffed their opportunity. Since then we've had PMs act with much less hindrance, and that has resulted in very poor governance.
Tory MPs would be doing the country a great service if they put some fetters on Sunak, preventing him from doing too much damage in his remaining time in office, and providing a lesson to Labour MPs on their role in keeping a Labour PM on a tight leash.
I make no comment about the political desirability or otherwise of the outcome, but I note that: a) the prediction above makes for a very pretty map. b) the SNP continue to hold almost all of the very prettiest bits of Scotland.
In a sense, the by-election simply reflects a result to 'normal' - governments often get a kicking in by-elections whether they go on to win or lose, and in this by-election voting Labour allowed voters to kick two governments at once.
The real story is how the SNP, despite having run Scotland for so long, have managed to defy political gravity and its usual rules.
Of course, the election also represents a huge boost to Labour morale, sets the narrative for the coming GE in Scotland as Labour v SNP (despite Labour's current just two seats), and goes a long way to neutralise the card the Tories have previously managed to play against Labour of scaremongering about the SNP holding the balance. With nationalism apparently on the retreat, English voters will be harder to worry about the possible break-up of the UK. So in those ways it is important, rather than because of the swing.
edit/ and having typed that, Prof Curtice is now on R4 making the same point!
Nationalism is far from on the retreat and Westminster is unimportant for Scotland. Holyrood is where it matters and where independence will be decided.
The evidence seems to point in the opposite direction, malky. Ok, it's one by-election, but if nationalism WAS on the retreat, THIS is what it would look like.
That by-election was nothing to do with nationalism other than the independence supporters giving the SNP a punch in the chops. Though there si plenty disarray given how dire and useless SNP are at present. They did very well making out they were Independence and manage still to hold onto the really stupid voters. It is indeed disappointing.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE · 1h the fiscal drag on this occasion is set to raise as much money as a rise in the headline rate of income tax of more than 5p in the £
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Britain isn't a nation - it is several. That is the problem. Either we accept and respect that there are 4 nations (and other mini nations like the Kernow) or we scrap all of it and reform ourselves as a single entity.
Scotland is distinct from England is distinct from Wales etc etc. If they are distinct enough to have their own laws, education systems, football leagues, international sporting representation etc then they are distinct enough to become a clearly defined national group in a way that none of your other examples are.
But what if a majority of people in Cornwall or Northumberland or Shetland feel they ARE a nation and want independence? Who are you to stop them?
Let them. For a state to work in the medium to long term it has to be the natural expression of the settled will of the majority of its people. The UK worked for a long time because it was that expression. Now it seems that the individual countries are becoming a better expression of that will and as such the UK will probably dissolve in the next 50 years.
If, in the future, another part of England or Scotland felt that those countries were no longer 'of use' then the same process would hopefully happen. The alternative is people being forced to live under an artificial construct they hold no loyalty or love for. Or worse actively hate.
The same applies the other way round of course. If the settled will of the people of Europe (the people not the politicians) is for a country called Europe then that is what should be created.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.
Only thing I'll add is that inertia is a powerful force in democratic politics. Cornwall, Northumberland and Shetland are most likely to vote simply on national political lines, not for independence. If they are so aggrieved or otherwise concerned that they do vote for independence, that vote should be respected.
Obviously that can't go down to the individual household level. Bob at Number 72 can't declare UDI. But for already defined democratic regions that have a vote democratically and independence is the will of the majority in a clear election? That's different.
So any shire or county, then? Or any well defined region like the northwest? Or London? Can London declare UDI? It can certainly afford to and it would be richer than almost any other European nation per capita, and it is democratically self governing
Its all utter nonsense and doesn’t withstand a moment of scrutiny
Yes if that is the will of the majority then yes. That's democracy.
Of course London would be tremendously harmed by independence which is why there is no London independence movement or prospect of it happening.
Currently London does well because of, not despite the fact of, it's linked to the rest of the nation.
Politicians, people, businesses and investment from all over the country get swallowed up by London like a black hole absorbing that which is within its event horizon.
Without the rest of the country, London would alone be far less interesting, but I'm sure it could cope independently even if diminished.
But in the extremely unlikely event London were to vote for independence then that vote should be respected and the rest of the country would need to pick a new capital and start putting investment there instead of London.
However since none of those regions you named have elected representatives seeking independence it's utterly moot. Democracy is saying independence isn't an issue for them, so respect that and move on.
There is an attempt from the pro trans fanatics, as opposed to those who are moderate, to simply say those who are gender critical are the "far right", it is not very helpful at all.
Whilst actually true, this is another example of da yoof using the word "fascist"/"far right" to describe any position they don't like. Words such as "fascist", "capitalism" or "far right" have become disconnected from their original referents and now float freely to be attached to anything at will. Recall how I keep banging on about word usage.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Kent’s population, at 1.8 million people, is roughly the same as the population of Latvia, and significantly greater than that of Estonia (1.3m), Cyprus (1.2m) and Malta (0.5m). It has been an independent Kingdom within recorded history. It has excellent transport links with the whole of Europe, a decent agricultural base, and a tourism base. It also had, until 1925, it’s own law of property separate to the rest of England (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind)
Of course it’s an absurd thought. Kent is never going to seek independence but if it did it has as much right to do so as, say, Slovenia (never been a unified independent state prior to the break up of Yugoslavia) or Belgium (culturally Dutch and French, similarly never previously been independent).
However, we are hamstrung in Britain by our allergy to proper devolution and localism. The principle of subsidiarity, which allows multiple identities to coexist happily together. Instead we get this absolutism that all power should sit in Westminster. It brings us Brexit and beyond from the sovereignty mob who don't like the idea of supra-national power, and extreme unionism and centralism from both main parties who dare not give too much power to regions or cities for fear they might become an alternative power base.
See Rishi's latest ridiculous efforts to meddle in council competencies on traffic management. It's none of his f'ing business.
Yorkshire, Cumbria, Kent, Hereford: should all have far more power to do their own thing than they currently do. Along with that should hopefully come some kind of regional pride. And so at their own level should villages like Wormelow Tump in Herefordshire or Pett Bottom in Kent. If Pett Bottom were in France it would probably have its own village wine appellation. If it were in Switzerland the residents would vote on whether to permit lawnmowing on Sundays. And the Orkneys and Cornwall should absolutely have more power. They should be able to set their own corporation and personal income taxes for example, in addition to a lower federal tax rate.
But could Orkney or Yorkshire have its own fiat currency, head of state or military? Of course not. Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, render unto Yorkshire that which belongs to Yorkshire.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
Hey, I'm not going to excuse the DfT and the IET disaster (started, of course, under Brown). But it's naive to think that the DfT and treasury did not have heavy inputs into the specifications, even in BR days. BR could not just build what they wanted, even if the funding was available.
Sure! But lets look at the Class 700 and the Class 319s they replaced. The 319s weren't perfect, but they managed to have seats you could sit in and tables you could work on. Even BR management couldn't get that bit wrong.
Indeed. But BR was managing a declining network; because of lack of paths on busy lines amongst other reasons, it's important to cram as many people into every train as possible. As the DfT and treasury have been getting more control, so does the need to squeeze every penny out of every train - and that means squeezing more passengers onto every train.
The Covid pandemic has given them just the excuse they need, sadly.
I've been crying out about the stupidity of the IEP project as long as I've been on here - and before they entered service! Brown's government has a lot to answer for over that mess...
They only want to cram people on because they won't allow operators to buy long enough trains. Even the private sector gets screwed by this - Lumo have draconian luggage restrictions which cause them significant problems with tourists (their target market). The DfT threatened to instruct Network Rail to pull their access rights unless they met an arbitrary threshhold on numbers of seats. So we have trains built for tourists which can't let them bring suitcases...
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Britain isn't a nation - it is several. That is the problem. Either we accept and respect that there are 4 nations (and other mini nations like the Kernow) or we scrap all of it and reform ourselves as a single entity.
Scotland is distinct from England is distinct from Wales etc etc. If they are distinct enough to have their own laws, education systems, football leagues, international sporting representation etc then they are distinct enough to become a clearly defined national group in a way that none of your other examples are.
But what if a majority of people in Cornwall or Northumberland or Shetland feel they ARE a nation and want independence? Who are you to stop them?
Let them. For a state to work in the medium to long term it has to be the natural expression of the settled will of the majority of its people. The UK worked for a long time because it was that expression. Now it seems that the individual countries are becoming a better expression of that will and as such the UK will probably dissolve in the next 50 years.
If, in the future, another part of England or Scotland felt that those countries were no longer 'of use' then the same process would hopefully happen. The alternative is people being forced to live under an artificial construct they hold no loyalty or love for. Or worse actively hate.
The same applies the other way round of course. If the settled will of the people of Europe (the people not the politicians) is for a country called Europe then that is what should be created.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.
Only thing I'll add is that inertia is a powerful force in democratic politics. Cornwall, Northumberland and Shetland are most likely to vote simply on national political lines, not for independence. If they are so aggrieved or otherwise concerned that they do vote for independence, that vote should be respected.
Obviously that can't go down to the individual household level. Bob at Number 72 can't declare UDI. But for already defined democratic regions that have a vote democratically and independence is the will of the majority in a clear election? That's different.
So any shire or county, then? Or any well defined region like the northwest? Or London? Can London declare UDI? It can certainly afford to and it would be richer than almost any other European nation per capita, and it is democratically self governing
Its all utter nonsense and doesn’t withstand a moment of scrutiny
London is populous enough and rich enough, but fails @Farooq's elegantly simple test;
"Can you dispose of your own trash and run enough hospitals?" If yes, you decide. If no, tough luck.
(Yes, London has hospitals and waste disposal, but they are utterly dependent on the capital's hinterland to be viable.)
On that basis, Ireland clearly works as an independent state. Scotland is probably OK if it's what they want; there's not much that crosses the border every day. Both sides might be diminished, but not fatally so.
Most English counties are nowhere near passing the Farooq test; Cornwall is maybe the only one self-sufficient enough for it to be worth asking.
(Wonders whether to ask whether there are euqivalents of disposing of trash and running hospitals where the UK fails by being too interdependent on its neighbours, thinks better of it.)
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
you could hav estopped after "popular"
There is a scenario where the SNP continue to refuse to consider the needs of rural Scotland, and loses enough seats to the Tories and Lib Dems to prevent an overall Labour majority.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The problem with Sunak is he was deemed more acceptable by the chattering classes.....who aren't ever going to vote for him.
If he wanted to be acceptable to "the chattering classes" then he needed to drop the Culture War stuff. He did the opposite.
He is trying to poison British politics, and thoroughly deserves electoral humiliation.
This might reflect my stupidity but I really cannot tell what Rishi Sunak and the government more widely are trying to do, let alone which voters they are chasing.
I posted similarly. On here, they appear to have captured only the votes of their fanboys @biggwales and @Mexicanpete - it is scarcely a formula for victory,
It is quite amusing that you infer that @Mexicanpete is a fan boy of Sunak when he clearly is not, and you do not seem to recognise how easily he winds you up
You mean imply. And I’m not implying anything, I’m stating it explicitly. His daily droning on about the wonders of Sunak’s game-changing masterplan does indeed wind me up, hence why I keep challenging it. As for you, you blow in the wind, you were pushing a comeback narrative on Net Zero / 20mph only a fortnight ago, now you have thrown in the towel.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
While there are always practical reasons not to mess around with borders on a whim, asserting the right of nations to tell minorities to STFU has historically done more harm than good - often much more harm. I think it would be a pity if the Scots decide to separate, but if they want to they should be allowed to.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
Legally I think constitutional protection was never strictly correct - a bit of a stretch to deign that Andrew Johnson's contemporaries had it in mind when they penned the 14th amendment.
OMG just realised the Tories lost their deposit in Rutherglen...
Come the next election I wonder if we see asymmetric tactical voting in Scotland. Erstwhile Tories tactical voting en masse for Labour candidates, but Labour supporters not returning the favour.
Yes almost certainly. I think that's probably always been the case, a lot of Labour supporters have always preferred the SNP to the Tories (I'm in this camp - the SNP are a centre left party if a remarkably incompetent one, and I'm fairly agnostic on the union, but the Tories are sc*m, sorry) but plenty of Tories see the SNP as worse than Labour because they are unionists above all else and Labour and the SNP occupy a similar place in terms of other policies. The fact that the Tories are now rapidly retoxifying themselves won't help of course.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
Except the Supreme Court has been ruling on far, far more than Roe v Wade and in doing so has been taking a lot of power for itself and ruling on issues that were previously determined democratically. An obsession with just one ruling blinds you.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Kent’s population, at 1.8 million people, is roughly the same as the population of Latvia, and significantly greater than that of Estonia (1.3m), Cyprus (1.2m) and Malta (0.5m). It has been an independent Kingdom within recorded history. It has excellent transport links with the whole of Europe, a decent agricultural base, and a tourism base. It also had, until 1925, it’s own law of property separate to the rest of England (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind)
Of course it’s an absurd thought. Kent is never going to seek independence but if it did it has as much right to do so as, say, Slovenia (never been a unified independent state prior to the break up of Yugoslavia) or Belgium (culturally Dutch and French, similarly never previously been independent).
Nice one Doug. Are you a Kentish man or a man of Kent?
Neither. I was born in Whipps Cross Hospital, which is either in Walthamstow or Leytonstone depending on who you ask. We moved to Kent a bit before my 11th birthday.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Forbes’ inability to square the faith circle was the main reason I couldn’t vote for her in the leadership election. Unfortunately since then she seems to have retreated into portraying any questions on how religion might affect her political decision making as an attack on her faith, not a great look. Allied with Forbes taking up the cause of the rubicose Fergus means je ne regrette rien.
Fascinating. Perhaps this illustrates the gulf between groups. I don't support Scottish independence, but Forbes stands for two big ideas of great importance. One is that lots of people are formed and shaped by their beliefs, and this trumps political expedience; and secondly a party wanting national independence must seek support from all parts of the political spectrum, and demonstrate competence above all.
I don't share many of her views and am strongly opposed to independence. But for those who do, they have missed a big chance and may not get another.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Yes. This has been an interesting phenomenon, for it is classically a personal moral issue outside party politics thing. No-one worries about senior politicians who are Roman Catholics always voting against abortion (including leftie Labour folk like Rebecca Long Bailey). And no-one thinks an RC can't be leader/PM. Do they?
Identifying the difference is not obvious or easy.
Even with southern commentators (with no personal dog in the fight, if that doesn't trigger Leon), the attacks on Ms Forbes were notable. It does seem to be acceptable to attack the members of the free churches in ways that is no longer acceptable for other religions. Possibly an unfamiliarity and ignorance issue: old stereotypes about Calvinism and Presbyterianism are trotted out here quite often. .
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The problem with Sunak is he was deemed more acceptable by the chattering classes.....who aren't ever going to vote for him.
If he wanted to be acceptable to "the chattering classes" then he needed to drop the Culture War stuff. He did the opposite.
He is trying to poison British politics, and thoroughly deserves electoral humiliation.
This might reflect my stupidity but I really cannot tell what Rishi Sunak and the government more widely are trying to do, let alone which voters they are chasing.
I posted similarly. On here, they appear to have captured only the votes of their fanboys @biggwales and @Mexicanpete - it is scarcely a formula for victory,
Have you not yet worked out that Mexicanpete is not a Tory fanboy ?
Is irony an alien concept to you ? (Admittedly, he does it very well.)
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The problem with Sunak is he was deemed more acceptable by the chattering classes.....who aren't ever going to vote for him.
If he wanted to be acceptable to "the chattering classes" then he needed to drop the Culture War stuff. He did the opposite.
He is trying to poison British politics, and thoroughly deserves electoral humiliation.
This might reflect my stupidity but I really cannot tell what Rishi Sunak and the government more widely are trying to do, let alone which voters they are chasing.
I posted similarly. On here, they appear to have captured only the votes of their fanboys @biggwales and @Mexicanpete - it is scarcely a formula for victory,
Have you not yet worked out that Mexicanpete is not a Tory fanboy ?
Is irony an alien concept to you ? (Admittedly, he does it very well.)
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
Legally I think constitutional protection was never strictly correct - a bit of a stretch to deign that Andrew Johnson's contemporaries had it in mind when they penned the 14th amendment.
This is where from a purely legalistic standpoint I am torn.
I must admit, I kind of agree with the reasoning that it is not apparent that the constitution protects those rights and as such it is for legislators to grant them. In a mature democracy it seems to me we should let legislators be legislators and work something out and listen to their electorates.
The cynic in me suggests though that this is a convenient legalistic argument to try to hide the fact that the right of the court were gunning for this for some time and this had more to do with their beliefs than their jurisprudence, which just happened to conveniently align.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
It is the SC removing a right which had been settled law for half a century.
While I'd like to see Starmer making interesting promises next week, I think he'll be more likely to set interesting priorities. "I don't know what the books will look like next year, but i expect a mess. I therefore won't make promises now, as politicians too often make promises they can't keep. However, I will say that our priorities for the funding that we find will be growth, the cost of living and the NHS." Then contrast with Sunak, whose priorities are apparently potholes, smoking and fiddling with the exam system.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
What it managed to do was to get the States to unite so that they could win a war of Independence against the British. And it still exists. Those two things are not nothing.
Many other constitutions that have been created since cannot say as much.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Yes. This has been an interesting phenomenon, for it is classically a personal moral issue outside party politics thing. No-one worries about senior politicians who are Roman Catholics always voting against abortion (including leftie Labour folk like Rebecca Long Bailey). And no-one thinks an RC can't be leader/PM. Do they?
Identifying the difference is not obvious or easy.
Even with southern commentators (with no personal dog in the fight, if that doesn't trigger Leon), the attacks on Ms Forbes were notable. It does seem to be acceptable to attack the members of the free churches in ways that is no longer acceptable for other religions. Possibly an unfamiliarity and ignorance issue: old stereotypes about Calvinism and Presbyterianism are trotted out here quite often. .
I think it's more the chattering classes are reflexely rude about religion generally. It's PB's biggest blindspot.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Forbes’ inability to square the faith circle was the main reason I couldn’t vote for her in the leadership election. Unfortunately since then she seems to have retreated into portraying any questions on how religion might affect her political decision making as an attack on her faith, not a great look. Allied with Forbes taking up the cause of the rubicose Fergus means je ne regrette rien.
Fascinating. Perhaps this illustrates the gulf between groups. I don't support Scottish independence, but Forbes stands for two big ideas of great importance. One is that lots of people are formed and shaped by their beliefs, and this trumps political expedience; and secondly a party wanting national independence must seek support from all parts of the political spectrum, and demonstrate competence above all.
I don't share many of her views and am strongly opposed to independence. But for those who do, they have missed a big chance and may not get another.
Tbh I’ve not noticed Forbes and her wing of the party seeking support from woke metropolitans, possibly inattention on my part.
While I'd like to see Starmer making interesting promises next week, I think he'll be more likely to set interesting priorities. "I don't know what the books will look like next year, but i expect a mess. I therefore won't make promises now, as politicians too often make promises they can't keep. However, I will say that our priorities for the funding that we find will be growth, the cost of living and the NHS." Then contrast with Sunak, whose priorities are apparently potholes, smoking and fiddling with the exam system.
Characiteristically for the Graun, it ignores the fact that Labour were already right of centre in Scottish terms! Though their candidate was espousing landmark SNP policies in contrast to SKS, which complicates things still more.
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
There is an attempt from the pro trans fanatics, as opposed to those who are moderate, to simply say those who are gender critical are the "far right", it is not very helpful at all.
Whilst actually true, this is another example of da yoof using the word "fascist"/"far right" to describe any position they don't like. Words such as "fascist", "capitalism" or "far right" have become disconnected from their original referents and now float freely to be attached to anything at will. Recall how I keep banging on about word usage.
Same as 'woke' for the right as well. It's become a non-word to 'anything I don't like'
Comments
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
"Can you dispose of your own trash and run enough hospitals?"
If yes, you decide. If no, tough luck.
I added all the careful detail for your benefit because, from my lofty 148.971 IQ, I knew your pathetic 148.962 IQ wouldn't be able to interpolate all the details.
Re the issue sinvolved, those makie interesting reading
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/04/negative-environmental-impact-of-hs2-could-worsen-with-scaling-back
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/06/ive-gone-through-bereavement-hs2-bought-edward-cavenagh-mainwaring-land-for-what
'Like many other people and landowners who have witnessed the reality of the HS2 juggernaut on the ground, he has been astonished by the apparent incompetence and waste of taxpayers’ money.
When protesters took up residence in a nearby wood – which was not actually in the line of HS2 – HS2 sent in security. “It wasn’t just 10 or 20, but 200 security who looked like paramilitaries. They fenced in the protesters, and ambulances and climbing crews and diggers sat there waiting outside for about 30 days.”
HS2 also put security with dogs in Whitmore Wood, an ancient woodland that he owns, “and completely failed to ask us if this was OK,” he said.
Although construction work had not begun on the 2a section from the West Midlands to Crewe, HS2 had been undertaking advanced environmental mitigation works.
According to Cavenagh-Mainwaring, they took one of his best wildflower meadows, told him it was of low environmental value and sprayed swaths of it with weedkiller so they could build two ponds for great-crested newts. The meadow was on sandstone, one of the drier areas of the farm, and they had to bring in articulated lorry-loads of water on to the site to fill the ponds.
“I could have showed them where to put newt ponds – where there is low-lying land with water – but they never asked,” he said. “I find it extraordinary that I don’t think I’ve ever been asked for advice by them when I’ve spent my life farming the land here.
“I can’t describe the amount of wasted money that locals have to watch,” he said. “The contractors aren’t interested in a simple solution – it’s not a big earner. It’s about an engineering solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.'
Good Morning BTW
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
Only thing I'll add is that inertia is a powerful force in democratic politics. Cornwall, Northumberland and Shetland are most likely to vote simply on national political lines, not for independence. If they are so aggrieved or otherwise concerned that they do vote for independence, that vote should be respected.
Obviously that can't go down to the individual household level. Bob at Number 72 can't declare UDI. But for already defined democratic regions that have a vote democratically and independence is the will of the majority in a clear election? That's different.
There's probably a lesson here in how the SNP operates. It cares more about the 'image' of Scotland - that Visit Scotland happy-clappy saltire-waving tartan nonsense - than it does the actual nuts-and-bolts of running the country.
DfT: We have to have these unpadded ironing-board seats for fire protection
Actual Rail Professionals: no, we have this padding which is much comfier and compliant
DfT: Those seats are against the law
ARP: What law?
DfT: the law of ENGLAND
etc
Dire day for the SNP and Sky forecasting the SNP and Scon on 6 seats each at the next GE is astonishing
Whilst I will not vote for Starmer, he is heading into no 10 next year and both the SNP and conservatives into an internal civil war with many years in opposition depending on the path they choose to follow
If the next GE is a disaster, there is no way they’ll let him be leader for the Scottish Parliament election. Whilst the SNP love to be able to demonstrate their hegemony by returning lots of MPs to Westminster, the one they really care about is staying at power at Holyrood. Yousaf will not be allowed to jeopardise that.
And, if so, to whom?
One of the things that a PM in trouble has tried to threaten their internal opponents with is a GE. Your change would codify that threat into the constitution. It would make it much harder, and less likely, that a failing PM would be replaced. That would be a retrograde step.
We elect individuals as MPs. Not party drones. Not homunculi for the party leader. If the situation changes I expect MPs to react to the change and support a new PM.
Ok, it's one by-election, but if nationalism WAS on the retreat, THIS is what it would look like.
Of course Corbyn also won this back in 2017
Meanwhile no money for free school meals but money for supervised tooth brushing in schools more or less sums SKS Party up.
Let them eat toothpaste
Its all utter nonsense and doesn’t withstand a moment of scrutiny
I travel trans-pennine and Manc to London a lot for work. My lived experience of this is that of considerable decline particularly over the last 3-4 years.
A special trap:
"If HS2 decides to sell the land again, he will be given first option to buy it back but that will be a struggle because he has to pay capital gains tax on the money he has received."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/06/ive-gone-through-bereavement-hs2-bought-edward-cavenagh-mainwaring-land-for-what
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
a) the prediction above makes for a very pretty map.
b) the SNP continue to hold almost all of the very prettiest bits of Scotland.
Suck it up, ya fearties
Then i realised I was listening to a party of the establishment and power, which is running out of road. Like so many others.
SNP exceptionalism - where they liked to proclaim unique virtue. Not so much.
Me maw lives in D&G, which has flopped around red yellow and blue over the years - the Tory vote is solid but folk shift between SLAB and SNP.
The feeling on the mean streets of Gatehouse, Tongland and Dalbeattie though is that Yousless is indeed useless and the Sturgeon SNP was a grift. Honestly I think it’ll stay blue, but with a strong showing for Labour.
Of course it’s an absurd thought. Kent is never going to seek independence but if it did it has as much right to do so as, say, Slovenia (never been a unified independent state prior to the break up of Yugoslavia) or Belgium (culturally Dutch and French, similarly never previously been independent).
- The person born male with dysphoria. I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
- The person born female with dysphoria (the lesbian). I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to. Boys' loos or girls' loos? (You answered this one - girls' loos)
- The person born male who transitioned (the male to female) at the firm you have worked with. I guess from your description that they were born male, had their willy sliced off, and now says they're a woman at work. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
- The person born male who crossdresses. I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to either. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
The reason why I'm banging on about this point (sorry) is that it is the crux of the matter. People on PB talk endlessly on this subject but never get to the point.The Covid pandemic has given them just the excuse they need, sadly.
I've been crying out about the stupidity of the IEP project as long as I've been on here - and before they entered service! Brown's government has a lot to answer for over that mess...
In the past people have got more conservative as they aged. This was because they built up assets, became a home owner, created a family, had a great stake in society and stability.
That’s not happening as much these days, so why should people be getting more conservative?
Identifying the difference is not obvious or easy.
@PickardJE
·
1h
the fiscal drag on this occasion is set to raise as much money as a rise in the headline rate of income tax of more than 5p in the £
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1710176550748860521
One of the strengths of both the UK and US systems over the centuries has been that many individuals working within them have put their belief in the institution as more important than their personal aggrandisement. Both systems are now creaking at the seams because this is no longer the case.
I would like to see MPs act with more independence, and have weaker PMs, but when we saw that with Brexit and May, MPs completely fluffed their opportunity. Since then we've had PMs act with much less hindrance, and that has resulted in very poor governance.
Tory MPs would be doing the country a great service if they put some fetters on Sunak, preventing him from doing too much damage in his remaining time in office, and providing a lesson to Labour MPs on their role in keeping a Labour PM on a tight leash.
It is indeed disappointing.
Of course London would be tremendously harmed by independence which is why there is no London independence movement or prospect of it happening.
Currently London does well because of, not despite the fact of, it's linked to the rest of the nation.
Politicians, people, businesses and investment from all over the country get swallowed up by London like a black hole absorbing that which is within its event horizon.
Without the rest of the country, London would alone be far less interesting, but I'm sure it could cope independently even if diminished.
But in the extremely unlikely event London were to vote for independence then that vote should be respected and the rest of the country would need to pick a new capital and start putting investment there instead of London.
However since none of those regions you named have elected representatives seeking independence it's utterly moot. Democracy is saying independence isn't an issue for them, so respect that and move on.
https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1710214692885406034
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
See Rishi's latest ridiculous efforts to meddle in council competencies on traffic management. It's none of his f'ing business.
Yorkshire, Cumbria, Kent, Hereford: should all have far more power to do their own thing than they currently do. Along with that should hopefully come some kind of regional pride. And so at their own level should villages like Wormelow Tump in Herefordshire or Pett Bottom in Kent. If Pett Bottom were in France it would probably have its own village wine appellation. If it were in Switzerland the residents would vote on whether to permit lawnmowing on Sundays. And the Orkneys and Cornwall should absolutely have more power. They should be able to set their own corporation and personal income taxes for example, in addition to a lower federal tax rate.
But could Orkney or Yorkshire have its own fiat currency, head of state or military? Of course not. Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, render unto Yorkshire that which belongs to Yorkshire.
Nested power and identity is the way to go.
On that basis, Ireland clearly works as an independent state. Scotland is probably OK if it's what they want; there's not much that crosses the border every day. Both sides might be diminished, but not fatally so.
Most English counties are nowhere near passing the Farooq test; Cornwall is maybe the only one self-sufficient enough for it to be worth asking.
(Wonders whether to ask whether there are euqivalents of disposing of trash and running hospitals where the UK fails by being too interdependent on its neighbours, thinks better of it.)
It’s always a mug’s game to try and extrapolate from a single by-election, but hopefully the start of the tide turning in Scotland.
Funny old world.
This is a good run through of just a few of the worrying rulings in recent years, all power grabs taking issues away from elected politicians (often passed bipartisanly or states issues) as well as some concerning cases coming up:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/02/the-coming-supreme-court-power-grab-00119228
I don't share many of her views and am strongly opposed to independence. But for those who do, they have missed a big chance and may not get another.
Is irony an alien concept to you ?
(Admittedly, he does it very well.)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2023/09/25/cbec9/2
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
I must admit, I kind of agree with the reasoning that it is not apparent that the constitution protects those rights and as such it is for legislators to grant them. In a mature democracy it seems to me we should let legislators be legislators and work something out and listen to their electorates.
The cynic in me suggests though that this is a convenient legalistic argument to try to hide the fact that the right of the court were gunning for this for some time and this had more to do with their beliefs than their jurisprudence, which just happened to conveniently align.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/06/what-labour-rutherglen-victory-means-for-snp-and-uk-politics
While I'd like to see Starmer making interesting promises next week, I think he'll be more likely to set interesting priorities. "I don't know what the books will look like next year, but i expect a mess. I therefore won't make promises now, as politicians too often make promises they can't keep. However, I will say that our priorities for the funding that we find will be growth, the cost of living and the NHS." Then contrast with Sunak, whose priorities are apparently potholes, smoking and fiddling with the exam system.
Many other constitutions that have been created since cannot say as much.
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)