I've just seen several houses in Totnes with "Jeremy Corbyn" posters, some printed, others hand made.
Given the Conservatives got over half the vote in May, the local Tories4Corbyn must really be getting into the swing of it....
Seriously, has anybody seen any window posters declaring their love for any of the other candidates? Even in their own houses?
There's a Cheshire Farmer who has lots of pictures and posters of George Osborne up in his farmhouse
Totnes is like Brighton, transplanted to Devon. But, it only has 8,000 inhabitants, and its politics are completely different from the politics of the rest of the constituency.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
The future of the UK and Labour are tied together.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
I wouldn't sayit has 'very litt'e to do with them, but certainly it would be impossible for it not to define the legacy of the Tories, having been in power for awhile by then, even if one was charitable and concluded it was because they were merely inadequate to the task of preventing it.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Jamaicans 150,000 in 2010 (ONS)
Why were the Jamaicans refugees?
Surely that's *by* 2010, not *in*?
Whether "by" or "in", Jamaicans were not refugees, unless there's some awful Caribbean war I've missed.
If those figures and groups above are right, then Cooper is talking through the proverbial in saying what she's saying. Britain does help some limited groups of refugees but the numbers are far more modest and there is usually some link with Britain, though this is not invariable.
It does not mean that we should not provide some help but it is up for debate as to whether that should be help on the ground rather than letting a lot of people come here etc etc. And our reasons for doing so should be hard-headed not based on a lot of sentimental misunderstanding of history and emotional blackmail by other countries.
I would guess that over the course of 25 years, we have probably given asylum to about 500,000 people. We took in a lot of people from Bosnia and Kosovo during the fighting.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
The future of the UK and Labour are tied together.
You mean they are both likely to cease to exist in the next ten years?
Michael Crick's recent tweets make for fascinating reading for anyone expecting peace and reconciliation in the wake of a Jeremy Corbyn victory:
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 5m5 minutes ago Pro-Corbyn Unite organiser on plans to cull "careerist" MPs. Tristram Hunt wld be "wonderful scalp," he says. Simon Danczak "in cross-hairs"
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 3m3 minutes ago Unite SE London organiser also names 3 Lewisham MPs Vicky Foxcroft, Jim Dowd & Heidi Alexander as de-selection targets after Corbyn victory
Only one poll since the SNP landslide have had Yes ahead the others have all had No on front so it could have been a lot worse. It does emphasise the importance of getting the Scotland Bill passed sooner rather than later though and will increase pressure on the SNP to include indyref2 in next year's manifesto
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
so from syria, it would be best to just stroll through iraq to get to saudi?
Exactly my thought. For Syrians to get to Saudi or to Iran they would have to cross through not just Iraq but IS controlled Iraq. Not something I think anyone would suggest is a good idea.
This is not to excuse Saudi from their woeful lack of assistance - and indeed their work in fomenting and deepening the Syrian civil war - but the idea that large numbers of Syrians would choose that direction as an escape route seems rather naive.
You can also get from Syria to Saudi via Jordan. The eastern part of Jordan is quite narrow.
Only one poll since the SNP landslide have had Yes ahead the others have all had No on front so it could have been a lot worse. It does emphasise the importance of getting the Scotland Bill passed sooner rather than later though and will increase pressure on the SNP to include indyref2 in next year's manifesto
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years. KmKmkop
The future of the UK and Labour are tied together.
You mean they are both likely to cease to exist in the next ten years?
One scenario. Alternatively, if Labour make progress against nationalism the UK will be secure.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Jamaicans 150,000 in 2010 (ONS)
Why were the Jamaicans refugees?
Surely that's *by* 2010, not *in*?
Whether "by" or "in", Jamaicans were not refugees, unless there's some awful Caribbean war I've missed.
If those figures and groups above are right, then Cooper is talking through the proverbial in saying what she's saying. Britain does help some limited groups of refugees but the numbers are far more modest and there is usually some link with Britain, though this is not invariable.
It does not mean that we should not provide some help but it is up for debate as to whether that should be help on the ground rather than letting a lot of people come here etc etc. And our reasons for doing so should be hard-headed not based on a lot of sentimental misunderstanding of history and emotional blackmail by other countries.
I would guess that over the course of 25 years, we have probably given asylum to about 500,000 people. We took in a lot of people from Bosnia and Kosovo during the fighting.
So quite a lot less than 10,000 per month in any case.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
The future of the UK and Labour are tied together.
Yep - both are essentially finished in their current forms. It is just a matter of whether they reinvent themselves or die. The odds must be on the latter.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
The Indy’s Readers’ Liaison Assistant apologises for Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s column on “British Jews“:
“The third point is slightly more embarrassing – you are quite right that Ken Loach is not Jewish. Ms Brown was in fact referring to Mike Leigh. I can only apologise for this rather mortifying blunder, and I am grateful to you for bringing it to our attention.”
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
The Tory response to the referendum result, the election campaign they ran in England and the cack-handed introduction of a cack-handed form of EV4EL that will only strengthen the executive and weaken the power of individual English MPs, certainly indicates a level of shitness to say the least, as it does seem that at the top, at least, they do care about the Union staying together.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
It's inevitable at some point. Not enough unqualified support for the Union, too much desire for independence among too many and too many others who could be swayed to back those.
I'm confused. Is that Unite the Union?
By The Union I mean the union of our nations. Not enough people are passionately in support of it.
I was being facetious and I'm afraid you're right about falling support for the UK. Having friends in Scotland and Scottish ancestry close enough to qualify me to play football for Scotland (a higher hurdle when I was young enough had I been good enough, than it is now), it is upsetting. The causation for me and I suspect many others of a similar mind, is the SNP and its whinging, chip on the shoulder harping on about how badly done by are the Scots. Our druggies have to queue up in the Chemists down here - queue jumping up there really gets to one of my friends.
It probably shouldn't be like this 70 years on, but a German leader making political demands of a UK leader - which they expect to be bowed to - isn't going to end well.
If the UK PM did agree, he'd be finished. And it will bring out the Spirit of 1940 in a large chunk of the population - even if it wasn't deeply irritating being lectured by a foreign power as it is, which it is.
I've just seen several houses in Totnes with "Jeremy Corbyn" posters, some printed, others hand made.
Given the Conservatives got over half the vote in May, the local Tories4Corbyn must really be getting into the swing of it....
Seriously, has anybody seen any window posters declaring their love for any of the other candidates? Even in their own houses?
There's a Cheshire Farmer who has lots of pictures and posters of George Osborne up in his farmhouse
Totnes is like Brighton, transplanted to Devon. But, it only has 8,000 inhabitants, and its politics are completely different from the politics of the rest of the constituency.
Is it? I didn't clock that when travelling on holiday there in July.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
Richard Seymour mocking the disability of a disabled servicemen is a disgusting example of the nastiness. I hope he is sacked by the LSE and the Guardian, unless they want to associate with his views.
Only one poll since the SNP landslide have had Yes ahead the others have all had No though and will increase pressure on the SNP to include indyref2 in next year's manifesto
Ed won a few polls too - remember him ?
Indeed No won despite trailing on one poll a fortnight before. Indeed in Quebec in the second referendum in 1995 Yes had a clear lead up until polling day but in the end Quebec voters took fright and voted to stay in Canada by the narrowest of margins
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
Oh do behave. Only one other party has governed Scotland since devolution, and that happens to be the same party that allowed the ridiculous devolution project in the first place. Tory governments - or for the most part Coalition government - has very little to do with it.
Did the SE want to secede 97-2010? They were just as 'underrepresented' and 'aggrieved' as the Scots 2010 onwards.
To the Tories, the loss of Scotland would be a shame. For Labour, it would be a blow to their very existence.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
I've never voted labour and wanted Cameron to be PM, on bslsnce, the last two elections, and think it would define his legacy if it happened on his watch. So those saying that need not be attacking him or blaming him from a partisan perspective either.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
I think the SNP lost the NO vote down the back of the sofa where it has paired up with their petronomic policies.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - Coalition, EU referendum Osborne - End of UK
I've just seen several houses in Totnes with "Jeremy Corbyn" posters, some printed, others hand made.
Given the Conservatives got over half the vote in May, the local Tories4Corbyn must really be getting into the swing of it....
Seriously, has anybody seen any window posters declaring their love for any of the other candidates? Even in their own houses?
There's a Cheshire Farmer who has lots of pictures and posters of George Osborne up in his farmhouse
Totnes is like Brighton, transplanted to Devon. But, it only has 8,000 inhabitants, and its politics are completely different from the politics of the rest of the constituency.
Is it? I didn't clock that when travelling on holiday there in July.
In May, the town elected two Green, and one Labour councillor. The Dart Valley, up towards Buckfastleigh is pretty counter-cultural as well, and elected a Green Councillor. Totnes is a centre of witchcraft in England.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
It won't have anything to do with the Westminster Government, whoever is in power.
If the Scots decide for independence then there is simply nothing that anyone south of the border can do to change their mind. Everything has been tried already.
To try to attach the blame for this to whoever happens to hold office at the time is not analysis - it's just partisan point scoring.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
And Cameron rejected it.
I think your memory is about as addled as Corbynomics.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
Oh dear. Poor Mr Corbyn is finding the kitchen a bit hotter than expected.
According to ITV (to whom he has given an interview) Corbyn moaned that “an awful lot of journalists were spending a lot of time trawling the archives for anything he has said”.
Also, apparently reporting his comments about Bin Laden's death was cynical journalism.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
It won't have anything to do with the Westminster Government, whoever is in power.
If the Scots decide for independence then there is simply nothing that anyone south of the border can do to change their mind. Everything has been tried already.
To try to attach the blame for this to whoever happens to hold office at the time is not analysis - it's just partisan point scoring.
Ahem ...
"If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did."
Oh dear. Poor Mr Corbyn is finding the kitchen a bit hotter than expected.
According to ITV (to whom he has given an interview) Corbyn moaned that “an awful lot of journalists were spending a lot of time trawling the archives for anything he has said”.
Also, apparently reporting his comments about Bin Laden's death was cynical journalism.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
Noting the debate earlier about conflating migrants with asylum seekers, I note the BBC news page has a headline about a 'migrant' protest, and the subheading says the issue is about the eu struggling to deal with unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers, also referring to migrants in the same sentence.
While asylum seekers migrate to other areas, it being genuinely understood a migrant is not in as desperate a situation as an asylum seeker, clearly the terms are often used interchangeably nevertheless.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
And Cameron rejected it.
I think your memory is about as addled as Corbynomics.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
But by pushing EVEL within hours of the result for primarily partisan reasons reignited the cause. He could have been inclusive.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - Coalition, EU referendum Osborne - End of UK
Incidentally - have you asked the average English marginal voter their opinion of Scotland and Nat antics recently? Because I have. The nicest responses to something like this:
If they want to whinge, maybe they should go it alone and stop making demands on the treasury.
Scottish Indy would be popular in English marginals...
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
The PM who waves 'Bye Bye' to a miserable, whinging and what is increasingly perceived to be ungrateful, Scotland, will be cheered to the rafters by many English.
Open the next referendum up to the whole UK. The Scots will be gone in a heartbeat.
Ultimately Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland and a referendum in England on an English Parliament or Regional Assemblies is the best way forward to secure the Union and ultimately I think that is what will occur after all other options have been exhausted
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
Grieve away, if you want and if it will make you feel better. Apportion blame too if you like. If it comes to the Scots going neither will make any difference and neither will be of value in sorting out the new arrangements.
All that said, all we have to suggest that they will go is one poll from a company whose recent record is not reliable.
Richard Seymour mocking the disability of a disabled servicemen is a disgusting example of the nastiness. I hope he is sacked by the LSE and the Guardian, unless they want to associate with his views.
The words 'if he knew anything he would still have his face' had picked up 4 likes at the time of the report. Pretty vile. What mindset can bring it about? Along with others I've always thought the left in general and the far hard left in particular hated Britain. Its seems proved now. As I have previously suggested, Corbyn is fronting a 'stop the war coalition' to take over the Labour Party. Again this seems to demonstrate that.
But lets face it - calling Seymour a 'writer' is a bit of a joke in the first place. Still it gives us an insight into the dark underbelly of the left.
Oh dear. Poor Mr Corbyn is finding the kitchen a bit hotter than expected.
According to ITV (to whom he has given an interview) Corbyn moaned that “an awful lot of journalists were spending a lot of time trawling the archives for anything he has said”.
Also, apparently reporting his comments about Bin Laden's death was cynical journalism.
Heart of stone.....
If he can't handle such...horror, of having people actually look at what he said - and misuse it perhaps, as I am sure he has never done to an opposing side - then he is saying he knows he is not up for the job?
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
And Cameron rejected it.
I think your memory is about as addled as Corbynomics.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
But by pushing EVEL within hours of the result for primarily partisan reasons reignited the cause. He could have been inclusive.
He was being inclusive - to the people of England. You know, the majority of the population.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
And Cameron rejected it.
I think your memory is about as addled as Corbynomics.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
But by pushing EVEL within hours of the result for primarily partisan reasons reignited the cause. He could have been inclusive.
The timing of the EVEL announcement was ill advised but the general principle of some form of federal UK structure is sound.
In the final analysis the Scots decided to remain "inclusive" and being so does not require Cameron or other Unionists to pander to the SNP.
Oh dear. Poor Mr Corbyn is finding the kitchen a bit hotter than expected.
According to ITV (to whom he has given an interview) Corbyn moaned that “an awful lot of journalists were spending a lot of time trawling the archives for anything he has said”.
Also, apparently reporting his comments about Bin Laden's death was cynical journalism.
Heart of stone.....
Hacks hunt in packs.
And not just hacks. Tory party researchers will have been combing the archives, too, I expect.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
And Cameron rejected it.
I think your memory is about as addled as Corbynomics.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
But by pushing EVEL within hours of the result for primarily partisan reasons reignited the cause. He could have been inclusive.
He pushed new proposals for devolution to England at the same time as pushing new proposals for devolution for Scotland.
I don't see why devolution for Scotland is a perfectly reasonable issue, yet devolution for England is toxic and stirring the pot. I think the double standard is entirely due to partisan reasons among Labour supporters.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
And Cameron rejected it.
I think your memory is about as addled as Corbynomics.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
But by pushing EVEL within hours of the result for primarily partisan reasons reignited the cause. He could have been inclusive.
The timing of the EVEL announcement was ill advised but the general principle of some form of federal UK structure is sound.
In the final analysis the Scots decided to remain "inclusive" and being so does not require Cameron or other Unionists to pander to the SNP.
Proposals for EVEL had been discussed by the Conservative Party for a long time. It was right that having offered the Scots a huge increase in powers Cameron should remind the nation that a balance was required, in fairness.
I've just seen several houses in Totnes with "Jeremy Corbyn" posters, some printed, others hand made.
Given the Conservatives got over half the vote in May, the local Tories4Corbyn must really be getting into the swing of it....
Seriously, has anybody seen any window posters declaring their love for any of the other candidates? Even in their own houses?
There's a Cheshire Farmer who has lots of pictures and posters of George Osborne up in his farmhouse
Totnes is like Brighton, transplanted to Devon. But, it only has 8,000 inhabitants, and its politics are completely different from the politics of the rest of the constituency.
Is it? I didn't clock that when travelling on holiday there in July.
SeanF's right; it used to be beautifully summed by this piece of graffiti, which stayed for a couple of years until the council finally thought they should do something:
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
That is your opinion. I suggest that the Union has zero impact on the lives of the majority and if and when it goes it will not be noticed. Some people maybe even lots of people will regret its passing, but in the same way as they might regret the professionalisation of Rugby Union - something they might have prefered not to have happened but it has.
I doubt much of the rest of the world will give a hoot one way or another, if they even notice. And if they do and the PM of the day if laughed at, so what? What difference will it make to anything important.
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
Grieve away, if you want and if it will make you feel better. Apportion blame too if you like. If it comes to the Scots going neither will make any difference and neither will be of value in sorting out the new arrangements.
All that said, all we have to suggest that they will go is one poll from a company whose recent record is not reliable.
I'm not planning to apportion blame, at the end of the day if the Union is not enticing to the Scots that's a failure of those who, like me, want it to continue.
I take your point about it being one poll, but the nationalists beat me mentally years ago, I see nothing but success for them in the future, despite being totally wrong that they would win the IndyRef.
Oh dear. Poor Mr Corbyn is finding the kitchen a bit hotter than expected.
According to ITV (to whom he has given an interview) Corbyn moaned that “an awful lot of journalists were spending a lot of time trawling the archives for anything he has said”.
Also, apparently reporting his comments about Bin Laden's death was cynical journalism.
Heart of stone.....
If he can't handle such...horror, of having people actually look at what he said - and misuse it perhaps, as I am sure he has never done to an opposing side - then he is saying he knows he is not up for the job?
It's a curious complaint for a man of principle (as we are constantly being told he is) to make. If he said these things because he meant them, why not defend them and repeat them proudly. If he's ashamed of them well.... what are we to make of that? If he's changed his mind he can say so and explain why. And if he's sorry he can say that too.
What he appears to be saying is that he should not be confronted with what he has said. Or asked to explain himself.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - Coalition, EU referendum Osborne - End of UK
Incidentally - have you asked the average English marginal voter their opinion of Scotland and Nat antics recently? Because I have. The nicest responses to something like this:
If they want to whinge, maybe they should go it alone and stop making demands on the treasury.
Scottish Indy would be popular in English marginals...
I am sure it would be. Whether that would continue post-UK is another matter.
Mr. Antifrank, seems quite strong. Given that, mildly surprised she didn't just say she'd absolutely not do it.
Edited extra bit: Miss Cyclefree, for a man presented as a plain speaking ordinary fellow Corbyn does seem to need to clarify a lot of his past comments.
Being a traditional sort when it comes to our country, I am a Unionist. Being a Geordie means I feel a spec of "Oh, Scotland - that's just up the road".
But frankly, most of my Unionism now is to poke the SNP in the eye/solidarity with anti-Yestapo. I wouldn't really be bothered at all if Scotland voted Yes and left, and know a lot of others who'd be glad to see the back of the whinging - they don't have my specs of sentimentality.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - Coalition, EU referendum Osborne - End of UK
Incidentally - have you asked the average English marginal voter their opinion of Scotland and Nat antics recently? Because I have. The nicest responses to something like this:
If they want to whinge, maybe they should go it alone and stop making demands on the treasury.
Scottish Indy would be popular in English marginals...
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
Grieve away, if you want and if it will make you feel better. Apportion blame too if you like. If it comes to the Scots going neither will make any difference and neither will be of value in sorting out the new arrangements.
All that said, all we have to suggest that they will go is one poll from a company whose recent record is not reliable.
I'm not planning to apportion blame, at the end of the day if the Union is not enticing to the Scots that's a failure of those who, like me, want it to continue.
I take your point about it being one poll, but the nationalists beat me mentally years ago, I see nothing but success for them in the future, despite being totally wrong that they would win the IndyRef.
Quebec nationalists dominated Quebec politics in the eighties and nineties but they still lost 2 independence referendums
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
WRT independence. Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
And the Scots provided the NO.
And Cameron rejected it.
I think your memory is about as addled as Corbynomics.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
But by pushing EVEL within hours of the result for primarily partisan reasons reignited the cause. He could have been inclusive.
He pushed new proposals for devolution to England at the same time as pushing new proposals for devolution for Scotland.
I don't see why devolution for Scotland is a perfectly reasonable issue, yet devolution for England is toxic and stirring the pot. I think the double standard is entirely due to partisan reasons among Labour supporters.
Who is proposing English devolution. The only proposal so far has been one that will strengthen the executive and reduce the power of English MPs at a time when EV4EL is only an issue wen the PM cannot carry his party. There is time and space now for a detailed debate that does result in proper devolution.
Only for lazy analysts! Even for them, they choose to pick a particular incident that suits their own views. For example, What defines "Lloyd George" in your method? You probably would not pick "Ireland", yet The Treaty was signed in his premiership and that was a bigger blow than Scottish Independence would be because the Brits gave way to the Irish after the Anglo-Irish war.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - EU mess (possibly splitting the Tories, but less than 505/50 I guess) , immigration failure A possible Osborne premiership - really failing to fix the roof in time before another crash.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - Coalition, EU referendum Osborne - End of UK
Incidentally - have you asked the average English marginal voter their opinion of Scotland and Nat antics recently? Because I have. The nicest responses to something like this:
If they want to whinge, maybe they should go it alone and stop making demands on the treasury.
Scottish Indy would be popular in English marginals...
I am sure it would be. Whether that would continue post-UK is another matter.
I hate this rUK talk or post-UK talk.
The Scots would be losing out. They'll no longer be united. We'll either stay as the United Kingdom (the liklihood) or perhaps get greater. Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Every Scot I know would be straight over the border. With their money, and businesses too.
Couldn't be better for the economy. Couldn't be worse for Scotland.
Mr. JEO, but Englishness is bad, you see. It's why so many want to carve England up into pathetic little regional assemblies.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
Mr Dancer, many of those pieces correspond to the historic Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Also most of those pieces are more populous than either Scotland or Wales.
Oh dear. Poor Mr Corbyn is finding the kitchen a bit hotter than expected.
According to ITV (to whom he has given an interview) Corbyn moaned that “an awful lot of journalists were spending a lot of time trawling the archives for anything he has said”.
Also, apparently reporting his comments about Bin Laden's death was cynical journalism.
Heart of stone.....
Hacks hunt in packs.
And not just hacks. Tory party researchers will have been combing the archives, too, I expect.
Being a traditional sort when it comes to our country, I am a Unionist. Being a Geordie means I feel a spec of "Oh, Scotland - that's just up the road".
But frankly, most of my Unionism now is to poke the SNP in the eye/solidarity with anti-Yestapo. I wouldn't really be bothered at all if Scotland voted Yes and left, and know a lot of others who'd be glad to see the back of the whinging - they don't have my specs of sentimentality.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - Coalition, EU referendum Osborne - End of UK
Incidentally - have you asked the average English marginal voter their opinion of Scotland and Nat antics recently? Because I have. The nicest responses to something like this:
If they want to whinge, maybe they should go it alone and stop making demands on the treasury.
Scottish Indy would be popular in English marginals...
I'm with you Plato - every fibre of my political mind wants the Scots to have voted for indy; every bit of my soul is glad they didn't.
I've just seen several houses in Totnes with "Jeremy Corbyn" posters, some printed, others hand made.
Given the Conservatives got over half the vote in May, the local Tories4Corbyn must really be getting into the swing of it....
Seriously, has anybody seen any window posters declaring their love for any of the other candidates? Even in their own houses?
There's a Cheshire Farmer who has lots of pictures and posters of George Osborne up in his farmhouse
Totnes is like Brighton, transplanted to Devon. But, it only has 8,000 inhabitants, and its politics are completely different from the politics of the rest of the constituency.
Is it? I didn't clock that when travelling on holiday there in July.
SeanF's right; it used to be beautifully summed by this piece of graffiti, which stayed for a couple of years until the council finally thought they should do something:
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
Nope. You are just being party political. Accidents of history don't define anybody. History will throw more important crap on top of Cameron or Osbourne than Scottish independence.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
Off course accidents of history define people. If you're lucky posterity gives you one fact against your name. If you are very lucky or unlucky you get two.
Heath EU and 3 day week Callaghan. Winter of discontent. Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat Major. Black Wednesday Blair Iraq and maybe 1997 Brown Credit Crunch Cameron ?
Cameron - Coalition, EU referendum Osborne - End of UK
Incidentally - have you asked the average English marginal voter their opinion of Scotland and Nat antics recently? Because I have. The nicest responses to something like this:
If they want to whinge, maybe they should go it alone and stop making demands on the treasury.
Scottish Indy would be popular in English marginals...
I am sure it would be. Whether that would continue post-UK is another matter.
Come on, Mr. Observer. I know you care deeply about this issue but do you really think that post Scottish independence there will be a significant chunk of the population in the English marginals wandering around going, "Woe, woe! We are a diminished people. If only we had done more to save the union. If only Scotland came back!"
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
OK, Southam, instead of carping. If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
Marvellous piece by Alan Bennett on the decline of the battleaxe.
"Women’s confidence, despite all the practical gains made over the years, is taking a beating like never before. The bullying and backlashing on social media is cowing younger generations. A smiling face and neutral commentary becomes the default position, and the need to be liked is undoing us all.
A true matriarch, a true battleaxe, is fearless. She deals only in moral absolutes, so that those around her flailing in a sea of moral relativism can cling on to her rock-like convictions when mental cramp eventually sets in. She cannot be forged in such tremulous times."
Michael Crick's recent tweets make for fascinating reading for anyone expecting peace and reconciliation in the wake of a Jeremy Corbyn victory:
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 5m5 minutes ago Pro-Corbyn Unite organiser on plans to cull "careerist" MPs. Tristram Hunt wld be "wonderful scalp," he says. Simon Danczak "in cross-hairs"
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 3m3 minutes ago Unite SE London organiser also names 3 Lewisham MPs Vicky Foxcroft, Jim Dowd & Heidi Alexander as de-selection targets after Corbyn victory
Is not this what I have been saying. A take over. £3ers incorporated as full members and all nicely regimented.
Mr. JEO, but Englishness is bad, you see. It's why so many want to carve England up into pathetic little regional assemblies.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
Mr Dancer, many of those pieces correspond to the historic Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Also most of those pieces are more populous than either Scotland or Wales.
The heptarchy existed in a period where settlement and transport networks were very different. It does not make much sense to divide regions along the Thames today, for example.
I don't see why the UK would end if Scotland left. It was originally formed between a union of Great Britain and Ireland, yet it survived most of Ireland leaving. It can also survive a small chunk of Great Britain leaving. We can go on as the UK with a slight name change after the "of".
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
It depends on when I slip into the coma. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year. If it then votes to leave it would imply something has changed. Given Labour's absence from government, it would be hard to pin responsibility for that change on Labour.
The cause of your coma might still be Labour, in this scenario, and it might just be that the Tories are sh*t doctors and failed to help, with the first indyref them getting lucky with some CPR which won't work next time. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the blame stakes.
Looking back to apportion blame is a pointless exercise. If the Scots vote to go then they vote to go. The task of the rest of the UK is to wish them well and come to a settlement that provides the best deal for the people of England, Wales and NI. There is no point in grieving over the death of a political entity, especially when it won't be missed by the vast majority of the population..
The point is it will be missed by me, so I will grieve thank you. I'm sure it'll all work out ok in the end but I can be sad about if I want.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
OK, Southam, instead of carping. If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
I think we need a cross-party constitutional convention that leads to a settlement endorsed (or not) by referendum in all four countries. That may not work, but it is the only chance left.
Mr. JEO, but Englishness is bad, you see. It's why so many want to carve England up into pathetic little regional assemblies.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
Mr Dancer, many of those pieces correspond to the historic Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Also most of those pieces are more populous than either Scotland or Wales.
The heptarchy existed in a period where settlement and transport networks were very different. It does not make much sense to divide regions along the Thames today, for example.
I was talking about the nine modern regions, none of which use the Thames.
Mr. JEO, but Englishness is bad, you see. It's why so many want to carve England up into pathetic little regional assemblies.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
Mr Dancer, many of those pieces correspond to the historic Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Also most of those pieces are more populous than either Scotland or Wales.
The heptarchy existed in a period where settlement and transport networks were very different. It does not make much sense to divide regions along the Thames today, for example.
Very true, but I might be open to recreating the old Kingdom* of Sussex.
*Yes I know it wasn't a proper Kingdom as we now understand them, but there were independent tribes that could declare war on Kent, which is the important thing.
SO.. Under present circumstances and Scottish attitudes, quite a lot of people would be patting the the PM on his back..and then shaking his hand.. Let the whinging bastards go..and be done with them..
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
Oh is it? Can Britain tell Germany that its "expectation" is that Germany should not tear up the rules and that if it acts unilaterally it must expect others to do likewise.
Germany invited them in. Germany can deal with the consequences. Or it could have asked others' opinions first before tearing up the Dublin Convention. And then lecturing others.
Spot on - they've always thrown their weight around as a nation. Maybe a bit of inbreeding with their immigrants might lessen the tendency but I somehow doubt it.
Mr. JEO, but Englishness is bad, you see. It's why so many want to carve England up into pathetic little regional assemblies.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
Mr Dancer, many of those pieces correspond to the historic Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Also most of those pieces are more populous than either Scotland or Wales.
The heptarchy existed in a period where settlement and transport networks were very different. It does not make much sense to divide regions along the Thames today, for example.
Very true, but I might be open to recreating the old Kingdom* of Sussex.
*Yes I know it wasn't a proper Kingdom as we now understand them, but there were independent tribes that could declare war on Kent, which is the important thing.
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
So having a lot of Syrian refugees would destabilise Jordan, would it. And why would that be? And might that impact the desire of other countries to take in those same refugees?
Any country that suddenly takes on board an extra 630,000 people; about 1/12th of the population, would struggle. That would be like the entire population of Glasgow suddenly needing to be housed in London.
Mr. JEO, but Englishness is bad, you see. It's why so many want to carve England up into pathetic little regional assemblies.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
Mr Dancer, many of those pieces correspond to the historic Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Also most of those pieces are more populous than either Scotland or Wales.
The Heptarchy never existed, it was made up by bad Victorian historians. There was probably never a time when those seven kingdoms, and only those kingdoms, existed.
Mr. JEO, but Englishness is bad, you see. It's why so many want to carve England up into pathetic little regional assemblies.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
Mr Dancer, many of those pieces correspond to the historic Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Also most of those pieces are more populous than either Scotland or Wales.
The Heptarchy never existed, it was made up by bad Victorian historians. There was probably never a time when those seven kingdoms, and only those kingdoms, existed.
The term has been in use since the 16th century, but the initial idea that there were seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is attributed to the English historian Henry of Huntingdon in the 12th century and was first used in his Historia Anglorum.[1]
Comments
If I slap you in the face with an enormo-haddock and you (very sadly) pass away some time later after slipping into a coma, do you hold the doctors responsible?
Labour designed a demented, lopsided, unfair devolution to try and get itself a couple of Celtic fiefdoms forever and ever. It buggered up horrendously.
Rejoice!
http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/brook
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 5m5 minutes ago
Pro-Corbyn Unite organiser on plans to cull "careerist" MPs. Tristram Hunt wld be "wonderful scalp," he says. Simon Danczak "in cross-hairs"
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 3m3 minutes ago
Unite SE London organiser also names 3 Lewisham MPs Vicky Foxcroft, Jim Dowd & Heidi Alexander as de-selection targets after Corbyn victory
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jordan,_administrative_divisions_-_Nmbrs_-_monochrome.svg
"...If he knew anything, he'd still have his face."
But, I'll stick my neck out here and say that those kinds of comments disgust at least 90% of the population.
Labour provided the how, the Tories provided and continue to provide the why.
(For the record, I've never voted for Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard or Cameron. So, I'm not defending this from a Tory perspective)
If the UK PM did agree, he'd be finished. And it will bring out the Spirit of 1940 in a large chunk of the population - even if it wasn't deeply irritating being lectured by a foreign power as it is, which it is.
Heath EU and 3 day week
Callaghan. Winter of discontent.
Thatcher. Falklands and Miners defeat
Major. Black Wednesday
Blair Iraq and maybe 1997
Brown Credit Crunch
Cameron ?
Did the SE want to secede 97-2010? They were just as 'underrepresented' and 'aggrieved' as the Scots 2010 onwards.
To the Tories, the loss of Scotland would be a shame. For Labour, it would be a blow to their very existence.
Osborne - End of UK
If the Scots decide for independence then there is simply nothing that anyone south of the border can do to change their mind. Everything has been tried already.
To try to attach the blame for this to whoever happens to hold office at the time is not analysis - it's just partisan point scoring.
The Coalition government sanctioned the "once in a generation" referendum and has fully accepted the result.
According to ITV (to whom he has given an interview) Corbyn moaned that “an awful lot of journalists were spending a lot of time trawling the archives for anything he has said”.
Also, apparently reporting his comments about Bin Laden's death was cynical journalism.
Heart of stone.....
"If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did."
While asylum seekers migrate to other areas, it being genuinely understood a migrant is not in as desperate a situation as an asylum seeker, clearly the terms are often used interchangeably nevertheless.
If they want to whinge, maybe they should go it alone and stop making demands on the treasury.
Scottish Indy would be popular in English marginals...
Open the next referendum up to the whole UK. The Scots will be gone in a heartbeat.
All that said, all we have to suggest that they will go is one poll from a company whose recent record is not reliable.
What mindset can bring it about? Along with others I've always thought the left in general and the far hard left in particular hated Britain. Its seems proved now. As I have previously suggested, Corbyn is fronting a 'stop the war coalition' to take over the Labour Party. Again this seems to demonstrate that.
But lets face it - calling Seymour a 'writer' is a bit of a joke in the first place. Still it gives us an insight into the dark underbelly of the left.
Even the vaunted 'English votes for English laws' has so far been utterly lacklustre.
Mr. Observer, Labour's buggering up of devolution, whether Scotland leaves or not, will be studied for decades as a masterclass in incompetence.
In the final analysis the Scots decided to remain "inclusive" and being so does not require Cameron or other Unionists to pander to the SNP.
I don't see why devolution for Scotland is a perfectly reasonable issue, yet devolution for England is toxic and stirring the pot. I think the double standard is entirely due to partisan reasons among Labour supporters.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5195/7379905872_e142cb57cb_b.jpg
It then got replaced by this:
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Totnes-unofficially-twinned-UFO-base-Area-51/story-22962916-detail/story.html
I doubt much of the rest of the world will give a hoot one way or another, if they even notice. And if they do and the PM of the day if laughed at, so what? What difference will it make to anything important.
Wales was kept whole, Scotland was kept whole, but some (including some on the right) want to cut England into pieces.
I take your point about it being one poll, but the nationalists beat me mentally years ago, I see nothing but success for them in the future, despite being totally wrong that they would win the IndyRef.
.@YvetteCooperMP tells BBC it's 'very unlikely' she would serve in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet
What he appears to be saying is that he should not be confronted with what he has said. Or asked to explain himself.
That's a very monarchical view he has of himself.
Edited extra bit: Miss Cyclefree, for a man presented as a plain speaking ordinary fellow Corbyn does seem to need to clarify a lot of his past comments.
But frankly, most of my Unionism now is to poke the SNP in the eye/solidarity with anti-Yestapo. I wouldn't really be bothered at all if Scotland voted Yes and left, and know a lot of others who'd be glad to see the back of the whinging - they don't have my specs of sentimentality.
Whatever your view on it, this is turning into a bit of a test for the government.
For example, What defines "Lloyd George" in your method? You probably would not pick "Ireland", yet The Treaty was signed in his premiership and that was a bigger blow than Scottish Independence would be because the Brits gave way to the Irish after the Anglo-Irish war. Cameron - EU mess (possibly splitting the Tories, but less than 505/50 I guess) , immigration failure
A possible Osborne premiership - really failing to fix the roof in time before another crash.
The Scots would be losing out. They'll no longer be united. We'll either stay as the United Kingdom (the liklihood) or perhaps get greater. Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Every Scot I know would be straight over the border. With their money, and businesses too.
Couldn't be better for the economy. Couldn't be worse for Scotland.
If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
Marvellous piece by Alan Bennett on the decline of the battleaxe.
"Women’s confidence, despite all the practical gains made over the years, is taking a beating like never before. The bullying and backlashing on social media is cowing younger generations. A smiling face and neutral commentary becomes the default position, and the need to be liked is undoing us all.
A true matriarch, a true battleaxe, is fearless. She deals only in moral absolutes, so that those around her flailing in a sea of moral relativism can cling on to her rock-like convictions when mental cramp eventually sets in. She cannot be forged in such tremulous times."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England
*Yes I know it wasn't a proper Kingdom as we now understand them, but there were independent tribes that could declare war on Kent, which is the important thing.
The term has been in use since the 16th century, but the initial idea that there were seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is attributed to the English historian Henry of Huntingdon in the 12th century and was first used in his Historia Anglorum.[1]