I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
Not sure. A bit less than half the people in Scotland just want independence and are happy with neverendum until they get it. Most of the rest are pretty angry with Nicola Sturgeon for ignoring the result taken just two years ago and rehashing it all again. The question is whether the small group of "could be persuadeds" think this is the moment to go for independence and turn a smallish margin for the Union into a possibly tiny margin for independence. My suspicion is that Ms Sturgeon has been just a bit too cute. Is it about leaving the EU or not? And if it's not,we're just back to the neverendum.
Theresa May isn't very good at politics. She's just put the Union in jeopardy where it wasn't before.
I think she might just have given the SNP grievance machine enough ammunition to carry them to victory when the next referendum does eventually come.
She really just needed to, "Yes, but..." and delayed the referendum until after Brexit was complete. Her "No, but..." is trying to achieve the same thing, but it frames it in a way that gives the SNP something to whine about.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
But they are about to pass a vote in the parliament they were elected to.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
They lead the government in Holyrood and, it seems, they are able to put this item of their manifesto into effect, courtesy of the Greens. On any other item in their manifesto, would you have them disregard it because they fell fractionally short of an overall majority?
They can put it forward - but they cannot claim any mandate for it. Just because the Greens find it expedient to support them at the present time does not give the SNP any more of a mandate.
If Pascal Lamy's comments today reflect the thinking of the French government, and I think they do, then the union is going to take a hell of a beating during the A50 negotiations.
Theresa May isn't very good at politics. She's just put the Union in jeopardy where it wasn't before.
I think she might just have given the SNP grievance machine enough ammunition to carry them to victory when the next referendum does eventually come.
She really just needed to, "Yes, but..." and delayed the referendum until after Brexit was complete. Her "No, but..." is trying to achieve the same thing, but it frames it in a way that gives the SNP something to whine about.
The SNP would whine either way. They have not made the developmental leap in their thinking from protest movement to a party of government. Their default reaction is to whine.
They should try governing for a while - see how it goes for them.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
Absolutely seriously. If it's membership of the EU being the material change requiring a new referendum, the time to hold it is now, so Scotland can agree transitional arrangements with both the EU and the UK to minimise the dislocation should the vote carry. If the referendum isn't about the EU, Ms Sturgeon has broken her manifesto commitment and it is actually just a rerun because she and her party don't like the result from last time.
FTSE100 appears to have gone mad, up +0.64% today to 7,415.95. +500pts since January.
And the pound up two cents on the dollar at the same time, in the face of US interest rate rise that would have been expected to have had the opposite effect.
Absolutely seriously. If it's membership of the EU being the material change requiring a new referendum, the time to hold it is now, so Scotland can agree transitional arrangements with both the EU and the UK to minimise the dislocation should the vote carry. If it isn't about the EU, Ms Sturgeon has broken her manifesto commitment and it is actually just a rerun because she and her party don't like the result from last time.
There's a case for holding IndyRef2 before starting the negotiations, and a case for holding it after Brexit when the final settlement will be (relatively) clear, but there's no case whatsoever for holding it in the middle of the process. Of course the SNP know this perfectly well, which is why they have chosen to ask to hold it in the middle of the process.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
But they are about to pass a vote in the parliament they were elected to.
And if they win that vote, it will be because the Greens have disregarded part of their own manifesto.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I should think that committed unionists must be close to being bludgeoned into submission by this time, never mind about the Don't Knows.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
It's a huge call. Sturgeon will love it.
And Sturgeon wouldn't have loved the alternative? "Go ahead, have another referendum, knock yourself out..."
May has to do what works for the UK. Sturgeon was always going to be about ME! ME! ME!
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
They lead the government in Holyrood and, it seems, they are able to put this item of their manifesto into effect, courtesy of the Greens. On any other item in their manifesto, would you have them disregard it because they fell fractionally short of an overall majority?
I would have parties stand up for what's in their own manifestos and not act as puppets of other parties. If after an election they want to form a coalition with a platform, let them do that. The Green party gets state money for being an opposition party and doesn't deserve it. On such an important issue, the Scottish government should seek a mandate and not pretend it's got one when it hasn't. "Scottish democracy" rejected independence in 2014 and it took away the SNP's majority two years later. They only did as well as they did in that election because so many of their supporters were still so fired up. They really take the biscuit for arrogance.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
Their manifesto on any area not in their competence. There are enough areas in their competence, like Health and Education that they could crack on with in the mean time.
Tories, Labour and LDs in Scotland need to start going really hard on the SNP's woeful performance at the day job, ahead of the local elections in May.
FTSE100 appears to have gone mad, up +0.64% today to 7,415.95. +500pts since January.
People who receive their annual pension summary are likely to pleasantly surprised at how much more they're worth than a year ago. This will be especially agreeable as many will have become accustomed to little change in the value of their pension funds because of the stock market stagnation for much of the previous 15 years.
I know this because that's what has just happened where I work and no less than three people asked why their pension funds had jumped in value.
I explained that the stock markets have gone up because Britain was leaving the EU.
People who discover they are £5k richer than a year ago are unlikely to be bothered about stories of threatened 5p increases in the price of fish fingers.
This might also give a boost to the government in the polls and local elections.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
DKs prior to the last IndyRef were 5%. Current DKs are around 10%
Absolutely seriously. If it's membership of the EU being the material change requiring a new referendum, the time to hold it is now, so Scotland can agree transitional arrangements with both the EU and the UK to minimise the dislocation should the vote carry. If it isn't about the EU, Ms Sturgeon has broken her manifesto commitment and it is actually just a rerun because she and her party don't like the result from last time.
There's a case for holding IndyRef2 before starting the negotiations, and a case for holding it after Brexit when the final settlement will be (relatively) clear, but there's no case whatsoever for holding it in the middle of the process. Of course the SNP know this perfectly well, which is why they have chosen to ask to hold it in the middle of the process.
Due to ratification time if we don't know by October next year the 2 year time limit is boned.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
Absolutely seriously. If it's membership of the EU being the material change requiring a new referendum, the time to hold it is now, so Scotland can agree transitional arrangements with both the EU and the UK to minimise the dislocation should the vote carry. If the referendum isn't about the EU, Ms Sturgeon has broken her manifesto commitment and it is actually just a rerun because she and her party don't like the result from last time.
Both the EU and NATO have been clear - Scotland cannot simply "stay in". They must leave with the UK, achieve independent statehood and then apply, so there is no justification for having the referendum now.
Post-Brexit is the only correct time, or not at all.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
DKs prior to the last IndyRef were 5%. Current DKs are around 10%
Brexit is going to have to go very well indeed for the Union to survive.
This is the key. May is asking for an unprecedented deal from the EU that she only stands a chance of pulling off if she can beat Brussels in a game of brinkmanship. If one of the nations of the UK is simultaneously agitating to opt out of the process altogether she does not stand a hope in hell.
Theresa May isn't very good at politics. She's just put the Union in jeopardy where it wasn't before.
I think she might just have given the SNP grievance machine enough ammunition to carry them to victory when the next referendum does eventually come.
She really just needed to, "Yes, but..." and delayed the referendum until after Brexit was complete. Her "No, but..." is trying to achieve the same thing, but it frames it in a way that gives the SNP something to whine about.
The SNP would whine either way. They have not made the developmental leap in their thinking from protest movement to a party of government. Their default reaction is to whine.
They should try governing for a while - see how it goes for them.
Loollll
We had five straight years of "Well we inherited a mess from the last government" between 2010 and 2015. Tory whiners
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
Nope today was the day the Westminster government agreed with the majority of Scots in every poll that there should be no independence referendum while the Brexit negotiations were going on, unlike the SNP
We were often told that there might not be an EU left to leave by the end of the Article 50 process so it's ironic that it looks more likely that instead there won't be a UK left to leave it.
1) Lots of anger about NICs - people on PAYE don't see why they should have to pay more than others, especially 'rich people in London'. Hammond might well have managed to upset everyone on both sides of the issue.
2) A very nice reduction in business rates for 2017/18. Hipster cafes in Hoxton and Yummy Mummies in the Home Counties might be complaining but the places where elections are decided certainly wont be.
We were often told that there might not be an EU left to leave by the end of the Article 50 process so it's ironic that it looks more likely that instead there won't be a UK left to leave it.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
They lead the government in Holyrood and, it seems, they are able to put this item of their manifesto into effect, courtesy of the Greens. On any other item in their manifesto, would you have them disregard it because they fell fractionally short of an overall majority?
It's odd how angry people get at me when i ask them if the SNP are allowed to implement any of their manifesto when people demand they not being forward legislation on a referendum.
She has been running away from that reality for a long time now.
Personally I am quite happy for Scotland to leave the UK if that is what they really want. But to reach that decision, they need some truth from the SNP not wishful thinking.
Scotland - as part of the UK - leaves the EU with the rest. Spain has made it clear than an independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU.
Unless and until Sturgeon acknowledges the reality of that situation, all she is doing is making noise.
Moving away from the core news here, just watched the May interview. She used the language forging "a new relationship with the European Union". This seems to me to be a change in nuance if not in fact – rather than using words like "exiting" which have been the norm up to now. I might be reading too much into things. But could @SeanT be right and the government will now go for EEA-lite. Hmm.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
If Pascal Lamy's comments today reflect the thinking of the French government, and I think they do, then the union is going to take a hell of a beating during the A50 negotiations.
Lamy appears to be of the view that iScotland is a shoe-in for rapid fire entry into the EU. The Auld Alliance Redux?
If Pascal Lamy's comments today reflect the thinking of the French government, and I think they do, then the union is going to take a hell of a beating during the A50 negotiations.
Lamy appears to be of the view that iScotland is a shoe-in for rapid fire entry into the EU. The Auld Alliance Redux?
Moving away from the core news here, just watched the May interview. She used the language forging "a new relationship with the European Union". This seems to me to be a change in nuance if not in fact – rather than using words like "exiting" which have been the norm up to now. I might be reading too much into things. But could @SeanT be right and the government will now go for EEA-lite. Hmm.
I think you've read too much into it. As we move to the next stage of post article 50, exit is assumed, focus obviously moves to what comes next
She has been running away from that reality for a long time now.
Personally I am quite happy for Scotland to leave the UK if that is what they really want. But to reach that decision, they need some truth from the SNP not wishful thinking.
Scotland - as part of the UK - leaves the EU with the rest. Spain has made it clear than an independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU.
Unless and until Sturgeon acknowledges the reality of that situation, all she is doing is making noise.
Spain has said no such thing. It has merely rattled cages with phrases like "back of the queue".
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
Nats behaving like neds on the railway platform - gesticulating to passengers on a train pulling out of the station that they are "scared of losing" - safe in the knowledge that any real confrontation isn't happening.
Mr. Freggles, you don't think there was [and remains] a substantial debt/deficit problem with which the Coalition had to grapple?
It did inherit a monumental mess.
I believe that the majority of the deficit was created when the global financial system crashed. However, putting my comment into context, it's hypocrisy to call "whingeing" SNP grievance against Westminster (which has ultimate control over many areas of Scottish life) but not also apply that to Tory grievance over the circumstances they inherited in 2010. Either everyone has to grow up and play the hands they're given, or nobody does.
If Pascal Lamy's comments today reflect the thinking of the French government, and I think they do, then the union is going to take a hell of a beating during the A50 negotiations.
Lamy appears to be of the view that iScotland is a shoe-in for rapid fire entry into the EU. The Auld Alliance Redux?
Pity Nicola doesn't want entry into the EU.....
She doesn't want hostages to fortune. Theresa 'fools rush in' May, could learn something from her.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
DKs prior to the last IndyRef were 5%. Current DKs are around 10%
They haven't dwindled, they have increased.
And yet, as I have just shown, the balance of really passionate support is quite significantly weighted in favour the Union
But that is basically no hanger from last time. The hard core of each side were almost exactly the same.
From that same poll it meant Yes voters were being drawn from people who rated themselves 6 on the scale so Yes is already attracting people who consider themselves more favourable to the UK than Independence
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
I agree with the Prof. Today might well have been the day that the United Kingdom's death warrant was signed. The Westminster government said in effect that a democratic mandate in the Scottish Parliament was to be countermanded for the convenience of the UK government.
'Convenience' is a highly loaded word. You could more reasonably put it as: "Given the responsibility of the UK parliament to act in the interests of the whole of the UK, a request from the Scottish parliament for a referendum at a completely impractical time, and only two years since the last one on the same subject, has been denied, but the request will be considered in due course.'
Of course it's a highly loaded word. But the Prime Minister is setting aside a democratic mandate explicitly stated in the SNP's manifesto (in the same week that she has been forced belatedly to recognise her own party's manifesto commitments).
I have no doubt that the SNP are playing this in a way most calculated to achieve their longstanding aims. You can call that bad faith if you wish to use another highly loaded phrase.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
The SNP failed to achieve a majority on that manifesto and so it is a stretch to say that they have a mandate.
They lead the government in Holyrood and, it seems, they are able to put this item of their manifesto into effect, courtesy of the Greens. On any other item in their manifesto, would you have them disregard it because they fell fractionally short of an overall majority?
They can put it forward - but they cannot claim any mandate for it. Just because the Greens find it expedient to support them at the present time does not give the SNP any more of a mandate.
Can you not read plain English? The mandate is there in black and white re: a material change in circumstances in the SNP manifesto. This really is quite clear.
Moving away from the core news here, just watched the May interview. She used the language forging "a new relationship with the European Union". This seems to me to be a change in nuance if not in fact – rather than using words like "exiting" which have been the norm up to now. I might be reading too much into things. But could @SeanT be right and the government will now go for EEA-lite. Hmm.
I have thought all along she will go for an achievable deal something like EFTA. She is not going to walk away
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
Mr. Monksfield, do you think a non-binding referendum would happen, without Westminster consent?
If that happened, especially with EU citizens voting, then it could be lose-lose for the SNP. If the Union wins, they've lost. If the separatists win, May can legitimately insist on a proper referendum.
And to those who say "the EU referendum was advisory" - it was voted to be held by Parliament, and the result ratified by Parliament. The SNP holding a vote without Westminster agreement would be the equivalent of UKIP haven't organised a full national ballot without the consent of Westminster.
That's before we get to how long a generation is in Scotland (there is a legitimate argument that the EU vote changes things, however, Sturgeon's proposed timing is deliberately insane).
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
No it will happen when Scots want it and they have might it quite clear they don't want it until Brexit talks are concluded
Nats behaving like neds on the railway platform - gesticulating to passengers on a train pulling out of the station that they are "scared of losing" - safe in the knowledge that any real confrontation isn't happening.
Ah how i remember the doesn't want a referendum, shouldn't call a referendum, can't call a referendum, won't call a referendum , oh it's a referendum progression from last time round.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
No it will happen when Scots want it and they have might it quite clear they don't want it until Brexit talks are concluded
Which, by my reckoning, will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019 right?
Nats behaving like neds on the railway platform - gesticulating to passengers on a train pulling out of the station that they are "scared of losing" - safe in the knowledge that any real confrontation isn't happening.
Ah how i remember the doesn't want a referendum, shouldn't ball a referendum, can't call a referendum, won't call a referendum , oh it's a referendum progression from last time round.
Moving away from the core news here, just watched the May interview. She used the language forging "a new relationship with the European Union". This seems to me to be a change in nuance if not in fact – rather than using words like "exiting" which have been the norm up to now. I might be reading too much into things. But could @SeanT be right and the government will now go for EEA-lite. Hmm.
She's also banned MPs from saying divorce. This may be wishful thinking, but I do believe she is *trying* to steer us towards EEA-lite.
Anyway, I have written the next chapter of my thriller, and now I need a walk, then a big fat ribeye steak.
It will be job offer requirement plus limited EU budget contributions for some bilateral agreements, that has been her plan all along
If Pascal Lamy's comments today reflect the thinking of the French government, and I think they do, then the union is going to take a hell of a beating during the A50 negotiations.
Lamy appears to be of the view that iScotland is a shoe-in for rapid fire entry into the EU. The Auld Alliance Redux?
Pity Nicola doesn't want entry into the EU.....
She doesn't want hostages to fortune. Theresa 'fools rush in' May, could learn something from her.
The SNP should call for a referendum for Autumn 2018 whether May likes it or not. If that referendum says a majority of Scots want independence, then there can be a showdown.
Nats behaving like neds on the railway platform - gesticulating to passengers on a train pulling out of the station that they are "scared of losing" - safe in the knowledge that any real confrontation isn't happening.
Ah how i remember the doesn't want a referendum, shouldn't ball a referendum, can't call a referendum, won't call a referendum , oh it's a referendum progression from last time round.
I have time table and cheese ready.
Do you remember "once in a generation" ?
Oh, i see we have moved onto can't have a referendum.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
No it will happen when Scots want it and they have might it quite clear they don't want it until Brexit talks are concluded
Which, by my reckoning, will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019 right?
It will be end of March 2019 at the earliest, maybe longer
If Pascal Lamy's comments today reflect the thinking of the French government, and I think they do, then the union is going to take a hell of a beating during the A50 negotiations.
Lamy appears to be of the view that iScotland is a shoe-in for rapid fire entry into the EU. The Auld Alliance Redux?
Pity Nicola doesn't want entry into the EU.....
She doesn't want hostages to fortune. Theresa 'fools rush in' May, could learn something from her.
Weird one. Is it just me or is Laura Kuenssberg a bit irksome? There is just something about her presentational style and breathless need to work in controversy and comment that I find grating on the BBC. She'd be better placed posting on PB.
The SNP should call for a referendum for Autumn 2018 whether May likes it or not. If that referendum says a majority of Scots want independence, then there can be a showdown.
Referendums are only valid if people respect the results - the Nats clearly don't respect the result of the last one - and they are extremely unlikely to react well to losing indyref2 so May well within her rights to tell them to do one.
The SNP should call for a referendum for Autumn 2018 whether May likes it or not. If that referendum says a majority of Scots want independence, then there can be a showdown.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
A claim disproved by this week's events.
It may be false. It may be true. But nothing has been proved.
Nats behaving like neds on the railway platform - gesticulating to passengers on a train pulling out of the station that they are "scared of losing" - safe in the knowledge that any real confrontation isn't happening.
Ah how i remember the doesn't want a referendum, shouldn't ball a referendum, can't call a referendum, won't call a referendum , oh it's a referendum progression from last time round.
I have time table and cheese ready.
Do you remember "once in a generation" ?
Oh, i see we have moved onto can't have a referendum.
I can see you are hurting Alistair - but best you face reality - the majority of Scots don't want another referendum in the near or even medium term.
McDonnell on ITV getting stick for saying May was "guffawing like a feeding seal" last week in the Commons... he comes across so poorly, I would say worse than Jezza
Referendums are only valid if people respect the results - the Nats clearly don't respect the result of the last one - and they are extremely unlikely to react well to losing indyref2 so May well within her rights to tell them to do one.
Ah yes i remember Salmond standing there and declaring UDI on the 19th of September.
Weird one. Is it just me or is Laura Kuenssberg a bit irksome? There is just something about her presentational style and breathless need to work in controversy and comment that I find grating on the BBC. She'd be better placed posting on PB.
I really like her. She just about straddles the line between being serious enough, but also making it relevant to "the people at home" rather than getting hung up on Westminster kremlinology.
Moving away from the core news here, just watched the May interview. She used the language forging "a new relationship with the European Union". This seems to me to be a change in nuance if not in fact – rather than using words like "exiting" which have been the norm up to now. I might be reading too much into things. But could @SeanT be right and the government will now go for EEA-lite. Hmm.
She's also banned MPs from saying divorce. This may be wishful thinking, but I do believe she is *trying* to steer us towards EEA-lite.
Anyway, I have written the next chapter of my thriller, and now I need a walk, then a big fat ribeye steak.
Enjoy. I was thinking of similar. I will hit up a cheap but sound Languedoc from Sainsbury's and take it from there.
Weird one. Is it just me or is Laura Kuenssberg a bit irksome? There is just something about her presentational style and breathless need to work in controversy and comment that I find grating on the BBC. She'd be better placed posting on PB.
She is the reason Trump banned the BBC from press conferences
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
A claim disproved by this week's events.
It may be false. It may be true. But nothing has been proved.
The coming mood music will be as important as the "facts" that both sides bring to the table. My overwhelming sense is that the PM has made a terrible strategic error.
Many Scots, including Unionists, will not enjoy being told by the "English PM" that she will reject without discussion the will of the Scottish parliament. The ghost of Thatcher in Scotland Mk II will be rife. Polls may show many things but there will be a sense of unease tonight that will run for many years to come.
The SNP should call for a referendum for Autumn 2018 whether May likes it or not. If that referendum says a majority of Scots want independence, then there can be a showdown.
How was the Republic of Ireland formed ?
Indeed, you can't play nicey nicey where the British establishment is concerned.
Nats behaving like neds on the railway platform - gesticulating to passengers on a train pulling out of the station that they are "scared of losing" - safe in the knowledge that any real confrontation isn't happening.
Ah how i remember the doesn't want a referendum, shouldn't ball a referendum, can't call a referendum, won't call a referendum , oh it's a referendum progression from last time round.
I have time table and cheese ready.
Do you remember "once in a generation" ?
Oh, i see we have moved onto can't have a referendum.
I can see you are hurting Alistair - but best you face reality - the majority of Scots don't want another referendum in the near or even medium term.
The majority want one once Brexit negotiations are complete. Which is Sturgeons proposed suggestion.
Referendums are only valid if people respect the results - the Nats clearly don't respect the result of the last one - and they are extremely unlikely to react well to losing indyref2 so May well within her rights to tell them to do one.
Ah yes i remember Salmond standing there and declaring UDI on the 19th of September.
"Alex Salmond has suggested the appointment of Boris Johnson as prime minister could be the "material change of circumstances" that triggers another independence referendum."
Weird one. Is it just me or is Laura Kuenssberg a bit irksome? There is just something about her presentational style and breathless need to work in controversy and comment that I find grating on the BBC. She'd be better placed posting on PB.
She is the reason Trump banned the BBC from press conferences
Which says a lot more about Trump than it does about Kuenssburg.
Weird one. Is it just me or is Laura Kuenssberg a bit irksome? There is just something about her presentational style and breathless need to work in controversy and comment that I find grating on the BBC. She'd be better placed posting on PB.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
A claim disproved by this week's events.
It may be false. It may be true. But nothing has been proved.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
A claim disproved by this week's events.
It may be false. It may be true. But nothing has been proved.
You would say that, wouldn't you?
The biggest Scandal of all is that that film is unavailable on BluRay. I have searched.
Weird one. Is it just me or is Laura Kuenssberg a bit irksome? There is just something about her presentational style and breathless need to work in controversy and comment that I find grating on the BBC. She'd be better placed posting on PB.
She is the reason Trump banned the BBC from press conferences
Sturgeons proposed referendum date is after the Brexit talks have concluded by Theresa May's own timetable.
And that is TM position. However, Nicola knows that after Brexit is agreed it will take time for the electoral commission to agree the wording, the HOC and the HOL to pass the legislation and all of this before a campaign starts.
She is seeking to start the process now as she is aware that delay will take it well into 2020 - 2021 or beyond.
But inconveniently, the SNP are putting their manifesto into practice. If the Prime Minister wishes to argue that now is not a good time, she needs to be a hell of a lot clearer about when is a good time if she is to retain any credibility as a leader of the entire United Kingdom.
I expect she will. Autumn 2019 or 2021.
The impact on the EU negotiations is a very interesting aspect of this. As one example, does the UK government need to bother about the interests of Scottish fishermen or the whisky industry? It would be rather helpful to know beforehand, I'd have thought. That's why I suggested, not entirely seriously admittedly, that we should hold IndyRef2 immediately so we can get the damned thing out of the way and know whether the Scots want to be taken account of in the deal or not.
I agree. I think they should hold the referendum this summer before we trigger A50 and then we know where we stand.
Sturgeon's proposed timing was explicitly designed to provoke an inevitable refusal from TMay. And so it has come about. I'm not sure who gains, however.
Sturgeon now has more grievance to put in her grievance bank, and yet most Scots do NOT want a vote now, so she is in a minority, and is further annoying those Scots who are weary of endless constitutional soul searching.
I suspect this will just entrench views on both sides. Will committed unionists (who outnumber committed nationalists) be enraged by the spectacle of the prime minister of the union acting in the interests of the union, overall?
No.
Nats will go bonkers, of course. The dwindling number of DKs will probably hide under the duvet
I realise you're shiteing it about the chance of a 2nd refendum, and your entire output on the subject is an attempt to reassure yourself it won't take place, but calm doon. It's only day 3, you'll be a wreck before the next one.
lol. And yet, I was right, wasn't I? And you were wrong. TMay has refused. It won't happen before 2019.
It'll happen when wee Nicky wants it, not when Theresa says so. That's political rather than procedural reality.
A claim disproved by this week's events.
It may be false. It may be true. But nothing has been proved.
Sturgeons proposed referendum date is after the Brexit talks have concluded by Theresa May's own timetable.
And that is TM position. However, Nicola knows that after Brexit is agreed it will take time for the electoral commission to agree the wording, the HOC and the HOL to pass the legislation and all of this before a campaign starts.
She is seeking to start the process now as she is aware that delay will take it well into 2020 - 2021 or beyond.
Sooooo, she is making sure things are ready on time?
Seems pretty simple to me: there will be no independence referendum this side of 2020. But when one happens, May has given the SNP even more material to play with. Sturgeon has 45% of the electorate currently - they want independence despite knowing the oil price has crashed and the economics of separation are not good in the short to medium term. She now has three or four years to persuade 6% more to change their minds (while also knowing that some of the older Unionists will not be around to cast their votes next time).
Referendums are only valid if people respect the results - the Nats clearly don't respect the result of the last one - and they are extremely unlikely to react well to losing indyref2 so May well within her rights to tell them to do one.
Ah yes i remember Salmond standing there and declaring UDI on the 19th of September.
"Alex Salmond has suggested the appointment of Boris Johnson as prime minister could be the "material change of circumstances" that triggers another independence referendum."
You really are pissing against the Scottish rain if you are trying to argue that a departure from the EU is not a material change in circumstances.
Seems pretty simple to me: there will be no independence referendum this side of 2020. But when one happens, May has given the SNP even more material to play with. Sturgeon has 45% of the electorate currently - they want independence despite knowing the oil price has crashed and the economics of separation are not good in the short to medium term. She now has three or four years to persuade 6% more to change their minds (while also knowing that some of the older Unionists will not be around to cast their votes next time).
Whilst hiding from the electorate the disastrous effects of her policies on the country including education and negotiating a couple of elections - and with Eck sharpening his blade behind her.
The coming mood music will be as important as the "facts" that both sides bring to the table. My overwhelming sense is that the PM has made a terrible strategic error.
Many Scots, including Unionists, will not enjoy being told by the "English PM" that she will reject without discussion the will of the Scottish parliament. The ghost of Thatcher in Scotland Mk II will be rife. Polls may show many things but there will be a sense of unease tonight that will run for many years to come.
This is wishful thinking. Most Scots do not see her as the 'English PM', and those who do are already Yes voters.
Theresa May has at last put an end to the appeasement strategy. You don't win by retreating every time.
Sturgeons proposed referendum date is after the Brexit talks have concluded by Theresa May's own timetable.
And that is TM position. However, Nicola knows that after Brexit is agreed it will take time for the electoral commission to agree the wording, the HOC and the HOL to pass the legislation and all of this before a campaign starts.
She is seeking to start the process now as she is aware that delay will take it well into 2020 - 2021 or beyond.
Sooooo, she is making sure things are ready on time?
Outrageous!
Yes but she is trying to get it before the final agreement so that she can, in her mind, stay in the EU as UK leave
Comments
Theresa May isn't very good at politics. She's just put the Union in jeopardy where it wasn't before.
I think she might just have given the SNP grievance machine enough ammunition to carry them to victory when the next referendum does eventually come.
She really just needed to, "Yes, but..." and delayed the referendum until after Brexit was complete. Her "No, but..." is trying to achieve the same thing, but it frames it in a way that gives the SNP something to whine about.
They should try governing for a while - see how it goes for them.
https://youtu.be/xUrnzs_M8_w
May has to do what works for the UK. Sturgeon was always going to be about ME! ME! ME!
I know this because that's what has just happened where I work and no less than three people asked why their pension funds had jumped in value.
I explained that the stock markets have gone up because Britain was leaving the EU.
People who discover they are £5k richer than a year ago are unlikely to be bothered about stories of threatened 5p increases in the price of fish fingers.
This might also give a boost to the government in the polls and local elections.
They haven't dwindled, they have increased.
Post-Brexit is the only correct time, or not at all.
We had five straight years of "Well we inherited a mess from the last government" between 2010 and 2015. Tory whiners
#TrumpBudget eliminates 19 federal agencies https://t.co/LpN1yJttHB
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-boe-idUKKBN16N1IY?il=0
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/842414494013882368
https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/842421828916248577
It did inherit a monumental mess.
1) Lots of anger about NICs - people on PAYE don't see why they should have to pay more than others, especially 'rich people in London'. Hammond might well have managed to upset everyone on both sides of the issue.
2) A very nice reduction in business rates for 2017/18. Hipster cafes in Hoxton and Yummy Mummies in the Home Counties might be complaining but the places where elections are decided certainly wont be.
Personally I am quite happy for Scotland to leave the UK if that is what they really want. But to reach that decision, they need some truth from the SNP not wishful thinking.
Scotland - as part of the UK - leaves the EU with the rest. Spain has made it clear than an independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU.
Unless and until Sturgeon acknowledges the reality of that situation, all she is doing is making noise.
Osborne should have announced the two changes simultaneously last year as a simplification measure.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/smallbusiness/article-3496752/Self-employed-130-year-better-2018-Class-2-National-Insurance-contributions-abolished.html
"The Treasury said it would also launch a review into these (Class 4) charges."
Phil taken for a stooge?
From that same poll it meant Yes voters were being drawn from people who rated themselves 6 on the scale so Yes is already attracting people who consider themselves more favourable to the UK than Independence
If that happened, especially with EU citizens voting, then it could be lose-lose for the SNP. If the Union wins, they've lost. If the separatists win, May can legitimately insist on a proper referendum.
And to those who say "the EU referendum was advisory" - it was voted to be held by Parliament, and the result ratified by Parliament. The SNP holding a vote without Westminster agreement would be the equivalent of UKIP haven't organised a full national ballot without the consent of Westminster.
That's before we get to how long a generation is in Scotland (there is a legitimate argument that the EU vote changes things, however, Sturgeon's proposed timing is deliberately insane).
She's now busted flush - expect the knives to be out from behind her.
I have time table and cheese ready.
How was the Republic of Ireland formed ?
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/842423863237595137
Many Scots, including Unionists, will not enjoy being told by the "English PM" that she will reject without discussion the will of the Scottish parliament. The ghost of Thatcher in Scotland Mk II will be rife. Polls may show many things but there will be a sense of unease tonight that will run for many years to come.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14471087.Alex_Salmond__Boris_as_PM__could_trigger_another_independence_vote_/
"Alex Salmond has suggested the appointment of Boris Johnson as prime minister could be the "material change of circumstances" that triggers another independence referendum."
She is seeking to start the process now as she is aware that delay will take it well into 2020 - 2021 or beyond.
Outrageous!
Fun times ahead.
Theresa May has at last put an end to the appeasement strategy. You don't win by retreating every time.