Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
Quite, and Lord knows she gave him plenty of one rule for brexit, another for sindy type nonsense to challenge. I don't find her a particularly serious politicisn tbh.
It is all about her, I just cannot see why people think she is any good, has done absolutely nothing , just lucky to be around when Labour imploded and as such has picked a few straggler swho don't like the option of SNP. Yet to here her come up with any policy for Scotland , just SNP bad and ar** licking of London Tory toffs. She is after a Westminster gig for sure.
An election in May 2017 would see the Tories winning a majority of Thatcheresque proportions. No risk at all. And election in May 2020 takes the risk that there has been no hard Brexit shock because if anything has gone wrong - the deal involved compromise and brought Dacre's wrath to bear, or the deal involved no compromise and has brought about economic shock which has a lot of leave voters saying "I didn't vote for that".
For me a snap election now buys her not just a thumping majority but insurance in a few years.
How does she get a snap election , by saying her government is crap and we need a new one. What is all the bollox about fixed term parliaments about.
Surely SNP would vote for one - they aren't scared are they?
I was asking a question , not giving an SNP speechm I have no connection to SNP and have no idea what they would do. The patter on here for months has been to deride idiots who did not realise theat we had fixed term parliaments and so could not have snap elections, I wondered what had changed that the same idiots are now stating the exact opposite.
Give 'em a break malc, the poor diddies have only just got over months & months of telling each other that Sturgeon was bluffing about a referendum. It takes a wee while for their patter to move on.
An election in May 2017 would see the Tories winning a majority of Thatcheresque proportions. No risk at all. And election in May 2020 takes the risk that there has been no hard Brexit shock because if anything has gone wrong - the deal involved compromise and brought Dacre's wrath to bear, or the deal involved no compromise and has brought about economic shock which has a lot of leave voters saying "I didn't vote for that".
For me a snap election now buys her not just a thumping majority but insurance in a few years.
How does she get a snap election , by saying her government is crap and we need a new one. What is all the bollox about fixed term parliaments about.
Surely SNP would vote for one - they aren't scared are they?
I was asking a question , not giving an SNP speechm I have no connection to SNP and have no idea what they would do. The patter on here for months has been to deride idiots who did not realise theat we had fixed term parliaments and so could not have snap elections, I wondered what had changed that the same idiots are now stating the exact opposite.
There are methods for snap elections, but none seem very viable unless labour wish to self Immolate. That the principle reason would be to only one party's benefit makes that unlikely. And voting themselves down looks really stupid.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week
I don't understand this bit.
WTO tariffs aren't stumped out by government in the same way EU contributions are.
Unless a government were foolish enough to promise to compensate or recompense companies for having to pay them?
There is no need for the government to commit to direct payments, merely over-arching adjustments.
Civitas assessed EU imports as close to £13bn in tariff income for the exchequer on WTO levels. That's a very large chunk of money for the government to possess for either tax adjustments or investment.
It's not as if we do not pay tariffs anyway. The Uk exchequer already receives £3.1bn per annum in import duties (+VAT on them) from eurodiktat tariffs on global goods.
It's entirely conceivable that we could sweep away existing global tariffs where it is perceived to be beneficial.
The impact would most probably be more businesses and consumers opting for global goods at the expense of european ones.
Cheers for the figures. The last paragraph is important - something MaxPB keeps pointing out, is that the EU share of our trade is dropping even while we're in the EU, as faster-growing world economies outpace it, but post-Brexit we would expect it to fall even further.
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
Scotland has suffered from having politicians obsessed with constitutional deckchairs for more than 30 years now with not nearly enough time, thought or energy being spent on the day job. The cumulative consequences of that failure were hidden by the success of north sea oil and the somewhat eccentric behaviour of RBS but are now increasingly exposed. Anyone serious about Scottish independence should forget this referendum nonsense and focus on our infrastructure, education, exports, private sector growth, housing, public sector efficiency, tax competitiveness, the list is almost endless.
I was being bad in putting you on the spot. More seriously, you are changing the subject here. I mostly agree with you on the poor consequences for Scotland following independence. The claim you were making for the UK and the EU is things will carry on in a benign way because that's the sensible to do. I don't actually think that the case because Brexit itself was far from sensible so why expect the other side to be entirely rational, when we aren't? But let's say it isn't like that, why wouldn't the sensible approach also apply to an independent Scotland and the new South Britain?
None of my list relates to bad relations with rUK. I agree that after some posturing (which we are seeing in the EU discussions at the moment on both sides) things would generally become reasonably settled. But we do not have a viable economy. That is the problem and it is where all of the efforts of our political class should be concentrated.
I checked my family tree back a few generations yesterday. One of my great grandfathers was most likely born in Antwerp. But checking the Belgium citizenship website, it seems this doesn't make me eligible for EU citizenship ;(
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
I am convinced that when TM gets into the real deal she will not even take into account the so called hard Brexit. She will be seeking a compromise that may not suit the remainers but will not be anywhere near the so called hard Brexiteers.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
It's not just tariffs. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union has the potential to considerably increase the cost of doing business - both financially and in terms of time.
Not really. It will only affect those who import and then re-export. It will become routine. Remember that the US is our biggest single trading partner and we don't even have a trade deal with them. Businesses adapt and cope.
Yes - their costs will increase. Or they'll take action to stay in the Single Market. Either way it's a net loss for the UK.
Mr. G, don't be a silly sausage. We can hardly have two Elizabeth Is, can we?
Further to my earlier comments it noteworthy that had the then Princess Elizabeth died before producing an heir she would have been succeeded as heir presumptive by her younger sister who would have become Queen Margaret II with her son becoming King David III in 2002.
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
Scotland has suffered from having politicians obsessed with constitutional deckchairs for more than 30 years now with not nearly enough time, thought or energy being spent on the day job. The cumulative consequences of that failure were hidden by the success of north sea oil and the somewhat eccentric behaviour of RBS but are now increasingly exposed. Anyone serious about Scottish independence should forget this referendum nonsense and focus on our infrastructure, education, exports, private sector growth, housing, public sector efficiency, tax competitiveness, the list is almost endless.
I was being bad in putting you on the spot. More seriously, you are changing the subject here. I mostly agree with you on the poor consequences for Scotland following independence. The claim you were making for the UK and the EU is things will carry on in a benign way because that's the sensible to do. I don't actually think that the case because Brexit itself was far from sensible so why expect the other side to be entirely rational, when we aren't? But let's say it isn't like that, why wouldn't the sensible approach also apply to an independent Scotland and the new South Britain?
None of my list relates to bad relations with rUK. I agree that after some posturing (which we are seeing in the EU discussions at the moment on both sides) things would generally become reasonably settled. But we do not have a viable economy. That is the problem and it is where all of the efforts of our political class should be concentrated.
We know it will be hard Brexit and that's not because of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail. The EU are worried about the fracturing of their project and the rise of fascism. Set aside the practical reality that negotiating a deal in 18 months isn't just impossible it's insane, they can't and won't grant a deal. If they did it might encourage others to consider their own position.
So unfortunately for Blighty the deal we will be offered is va te faire foutre, and so off we go to WTO land. In a few years time things might settle back down, but thats like saying that after a big asteroid crashes into the earth things might settle back down.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week for the NHS. But it's the shock impact to industry that will do the terminal damage - a British car industry reliant on parts being shipped to and from the EU to be built here won't be viable if BMW have to pay an import tariff to the EU to ship Hams Hall engines to Germany for gearbox fitting then a tariff to the UK to install them in a Mini. Yes in the long term a supply chain can be set up. But in practice it will be the same impact as privatisation had on the train building industry - its swift closure.
And the same with banking, where it's even easier to up sticks and move. This I believe is the Trump card Sturgeon intends to play. All the way through our "negotiations" the EU will tell us not to go. They'll say stay in the market are you mad? So Sturgeon will agree her own deal - an independent Scotland in the EEA via EFTA, they'll give her transitional access, and so she'll have her referendum next autumn whether London likes it or not. And the carrot? No need to move to Frankfurt Mr Barclays, just come to Edinburgh.
I can see a Sturgeon platform of 'vote Yes for unlimited migration from Eastern Europe and a few City bankers moving to Edinburgh' sweeping all before it, yes!
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week
I don't understand this bit.
WTO tariffs aren't stumped out by government in the same way EU contributions are.
Unless a government were foolish enough to promise to compensate or recompense companies for having to pay them?
There is no need for the government to commit to direct payments, merely over-arching adjustments.
Civitas assessed EU imports as close to £13bn in tariff income for the exchequer on WTO levels. That's a very large chunk of money for the government to possess for either tax adjustments or investment.
It's not as if we do not pay tariffs anyway. The Uk exchequer already receives £3.1bn per annum in import duties (+VAT on them) from eurodiktat tariffs on global goods.
It's entirely conceivable that we could sweep away existing global tariffs where it is perceived to be beneficial.
The impact would most probably be more businesses and consumers opting for global goods at the expense of european ones.
Cheers for the figures. The last paragraph is important - something MaxPB keeps pointing out, is that the EU share of our trade is dropping even while we're in the EU, as faster-growing world economies outpace it, but post-Brexit we would expect it to fall even further.
In spite of continued expansion, the EU has fallen as a share of the global economy from 30% in the 1980s to a mere 12% post Brexit.
It was the best deal available once. Now it isn't and there is very little sign that it will improve.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
Scotland has suffered from having politicians obsessed with constitutional deckchairs for more than 30 years now with not nearly enough time, thought or energy being spent on the day job. The cumulative consequences of that failure were hidden by the success of north sea oil and the somewhat eccentric behaviour of RBS but are now increasingly exposed. Anyone serious about Scottish independence should forget this referendum nonsense and focus on our infrastructure, education, exports, private sector growth, housing, public sector efficiency, tax competitiveness, the list is almost endless.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
Merkel has been in power longer than Thatcher, and has split her own voting coalition by tacking to the Left in office.
So Schulz will probably win, and he will probably play hardball with the UK.
Total exaggeration. Even on that poll the CDU on 33% is ahead of the SPD on 32% and the SPD would only form a government by 1% with Die Linle which they have historically ruled out as much as the CDU has with the AdD. As I have also consistently said it is complete fantasy to suggest Merkel will play soft with the UK while Schulz will play hard, everything Merkel has said is consistent with the EU line that the UK will only get a trade deal if it makes some concessions on EU immigration and maintains some continued payments to the EU. The only party which would really support Brexit UK is the AfD. In any case all 27 EU nations must agree to a deal and Germany is just one of them
There hardball but then there's very hardball, backing a downright punitive response to Brexit to send a message, even if it causes someblowback. Germanys stance will be a critical factor in swaying others.
What 'downright punitive response'? Schulz has met May at No10 and as far as I can see his line is identical to Merkel's
I didn't say he would be necessarily want such a response - I don't know - merely acknowledging there is a possibility of hardball vs even more hardball.
There is a line of no trade deal unless some compromise from the UK on EU immigration and UK budget contributions to the EU, that line is held by both Schulz and Merkel, the only German party that differs on it is the AfD
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
Scotland has suffered from having politicians obsessed with constitutional deckchairs for more than 30 years now with not nearly enough time, thought or energy being spent on the day job. The cumulative consequences of that failure were hidden by the success of north sea oil and the somewhat eccentric behaviour of RBS but are now increasingly exposed. Anyone serious about Scottish independence should forget this referendum nonsense and focus on our infrastructure, education, exports, private sector growth, housing, public sector efficiency, tax competitiveness, the list is almost endless.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
None of them exports anywhere near the amount to the UK Scotland does to the rest of the UK and Scotland exports even more to rUK than the UK does to the EU, given the UK is leaving the EEA and Scotland intends to join it that means customs duties on Scottish exports to the rUK. It also depends which Commonwealth countries you look at as to whether they are more wealthy or not relative to when they were in the Empire
I checked my family tree back a few generations yesterday. One of my great grandfathers was most likely born in Antwerp. But checking the Belgium citizenship website, it seems this doesn't make me eligible for EU citizenship ;(
Hard luck Pulpstar, I had an Irish grandfather and grandmother so perhaps I could get Irish passport and EU citizenship if Scotland does not get its freedom.
We know it will be hard Brexit and that's not because of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail. The EU are worried about the fracturing of their project and the rise of fascism. Set aside the practical reality that negotiating a deal in 18 months isn't just impossible it's insane, they can't and won't grant a deal. If they did it might encourage others to consider their own position.
So unfortunately for Blighty the deal we will be offered is va te faire foutre, and so off we go to WTO land. In a few years time things might settle back down, but thats like saying that after a big asteroid crashes into the earth things might settle back down.
The cost of WTO tariffs is broadly similar to what we pay the EU, so no £350m a week for the NHS. But it's the shock impact to industry that will do the terminal damage - a British car industry reliant on parts being shipped to and from the EU to be built here won't be viable if BMW have to pay an import tariff to the EU to ship Hams Hall engines to Germany for gearbox fitting then a tariff to the UK to install them in a Mini. Yes in the long term a supply chain can be set up. But in practice it will be the same impact as privatisation had on the train building industry - its swift closure.
And the same with banking, where it's even easier to up sticks and move. This I believe is the Trump card Sturgeon intends to play. All the way through our "negotiations" the EU will tell us not to go. They'll say stay in the market are you mad? So Sturgeon will agree her own deal - an independent Scotland in the EEA via EFTA, they'll give her transitional access, and so she'll have her referendum next autumn whether London likes it or not. And the carrot? No need to move to Frankfurt Mr Barclays, just come to Edinburgh.
Excellent post as ever, why do we not see more of you on here to balance the excesses of the frothers.
I checked my family tree back a few generations yesterday. One of my great grandfathers was most likely born in Antwerp. But checking the Belgium citizenship website, it seems this doesn't make me eligible for EU citizenship ;(
Hard luck Pulpstar, I had an Irish grandfather and grandmother so perhaps I could get Irish passport and EU citizenship if Scotland does not get its freedom.
piss off we dont want you, there's already enough problems with the scots in the North East without bringing in more :-)
Have to admit I'd never thought until now of the Remainer May strategy to be one of bluff and double bluff in order to get her own way but such is the intellect of your average Leaver, who would make Worzel Gummidge look like an intellect giant, it's quite possible that she's run rings round them to ensure that the country isn't damaged unnecessarily.
if remainers are so stonkingly clever, how come they lost ?
I mean by your own admission you only had to bamboozle a bunch of thickos and you couldnt, so what does that say about you ?
Campaigns and parties that play to voters baser instincts often succeed in the short term. history is littered with examples.
ah yes, blame the voters, not your own cack handed mismanagement
Voters also need to also accept the consequence of their actions and not cry about it if it doesn't work out and look for someone else to blame.
If Brexit is an economic disaster I doubt Mr & Mrs Leave in Sunderland or Stoke will question whether they looked into it sufficiently before voting for it, they will blame politicians who "should have warned us".
An election in May 2017 would see the Tories winning a majority of Thatcheresque proportions. No risk at all. And election in May 2020 takes the risk that there has been no hard Brexit shock because if anything has gone wrong - the deal involved compromise and brought Dacre's wrath to bear, or the deal involved no compromise and has brought about economic shock which has a lot of leave voters saying "I didn't vote for that".
For me a snap election now buys her not just a thumping majority but insurance in a few years.
How does she get a snap election , by saying her government is crap and we need a new one. What is all the bollox about fixed term parliaments about.
Surely SNP would vote for one - they aren't scared are they?
I was asking a question , not giving an SNP speechm I have no connection to SNP and have no idea what they would do. The patter on here for months has been to deride idiots who did not realise theat we had fixed term parliaments and so could not have snap elections, I wondered what had changed that the same idiots are now stating the exact opposite.
There are methods for snap elections, but none seem very viable unless labour wish to self Immolate. That the principle reason would be to only one party's benefit makes that unlikely. And voting themselves down looks really stupid.
Exactly what I thought, so it is all a load of Tory bollox.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
Nicky Morgan was on Preston saying she and Osbourne are the liberal wing of the Tory party and when May fired them all they weren't all going to go all quit. Says she and Osborne will write articles etc.
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
Of course Scotland could survive independently. It just has an extremely advantageous arrangement at the present time and giving up those advantages would come at a severe cost.
There is an argument, which you have made, that some of those weaknesses are a consequence of the Union. To the extent that the UK is dominated by the demands and needs of London and its powerhouse economy that is probably true. But that does not make that dependency any less of a fact nor does it address the problem.
If we are to become independent we need to get our economy in a viable state. That means getting our tax revenues and public expenditure much more in balance, giving serious thought as to what our strengths are to be and how our public sector can help with that, trying to encourage indigenous businesses to grow and achieve critical mass, get serious about addressing the deficiencies in the education we give to our children and the training we give to our young people. The Scottish Parliament has a range of powers over most of these areas now but when everything is looked at through the lens of independence and a reluctance to challenge vested interests we really get nowhere.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
None of them exports anywhere near the amount to the UK Scotland does to the rest of the UK and Scotland exports even more to rUK than the UK does to the EU, given the UK is leaving the EEA and Scotland intends to join it that means customs duties on Scottish exports to the rUK. It also depends which Commonwealth countries you look at as to whether they are more wealthy or not relative to when they were in the Empire
None are desperate to come back that is for sure and none will be poorer than they would have been had they remained as colonies like Scotland.
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ... .... from the Scottish line.
That makes no sense as James was knocked down to 1.
I checked my family tree back a few generations yesterday. One of my great grandfathers was most likely born in Antwerp. But checking the Belgium citizenship website, it seems this doesn't make me eligible for EU citizenship ;(
Hard luck Pulpstar, I had an Irish grandfather and grandmother so perhaps I could get Irish passport and EU citizenship if Scotland does not get its freedom.
piss off we dont want you, there's already enough problems with the scots in the North East without bringing in more :-)
LOL, It is a mystery story that I need to solve sometime, name changes and all that sort of stuff with no-one knowing the story though it can probably be guessed.
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
Indeed. Theres a middle ground between constant interruption and just letting them spew pure spin, sometimes unconnected with the point.
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ... .... from the Scottish line.
That makes no sense as James was knocked down to 1.
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
Nicky Morgan was on Preston saying she and Osbourne are the liberal wing of the Tory party and when May fired them all they weren't all going to go all quit. Says she and Osborne will write articles etc.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
None of them exports anywhere near the amount to the UK Scotland does to the rest of the UK and Scotland exports even more to rUK than the UK does to the EU, given the UK is leaving the EEA and Scotland intends to join it that means customs duties on Scottish exports to the rUK. It also depends which Commonwealth countries you look at as to whether they are more wealthy or not relative to when they were in the Empire
None are desperate to come back that is for sure and none will be poorer than they would have been had they remained as colonies like Scotland.
The growth of India, Hong Kong, Singapore etc is in large part due to following much of the British economic model. It was Scotland who asked to join the UK in the firstplace when it was at a point of near bankruptcy and given Scotland sends most of its exports to the rest of the UK it is far more reliant on UK trade than any other Commonwealth nation
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
Funny lot south of the border ....
One of my Scottish relations has just posted a picture of her latest cooking effort. I thought it was a vegetarian haggis, but it is apparently a walnut roulade!
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
Indeed. Theres a middle ground between constant interruption and just letting them spew pure spin, sometimes unconnected with the point.
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ... .... from the Scottish line.
That makes no sense as James was knocked down to 1.
The Convention of the higher regnal number taking precedence was instituted after James VI and I to prevent that happening again.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
Funny lot south of the border ....
Scotland is I believe unique in the world in not have Coca-cola as the most popular carbonated soft drink
An election in May 2017 would see the Tories winning a majority of Thatcheresque proportions. No risk at all. And election in May 2020 takes the risk that there has been no hard Brexit shock because if anything has gone wrong - the deal involved compromise and brought Dacre's wrath to bear, or the deal involved no compromise and has brought about economic shock which has a lot of leave voters saying "I didn't vote for that".
For me a snap election now buys her not just a thumping majority but insurance in a few years.
How does she get a snap election , by saying her government is crap and we need a new one. What is all the bollox about fixed term parliaments about.
Surely SNP would vote for one - they aren't scared are they?
I was asking a question , not giving an SNP speechm I have no connection to SNP and have no idea what they would do. The patter on here for months has been to deride idiots who did not realise theat we had fixed term parliaments and so could not have snap elections, I wondered what had changed that the same idiots are now stating the exact opposite.
There are methods for snap elections, but none seem very viable unless labour wish to self Immolate. That the principle reason would be to only one party's benefit makes that unlikely. And voting themselves down looks really stupid.
Exactly what I thought, so it is all a load of Tory bollox.
Well I can't speak for them, and there are governmental advantages if they had a bigger majority, bit it looks that way.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
Funny lot south of the border ....
One of my Scottish relations has just posted a picture of her latest cooking effort. I thought it was a vegetarian haggis, but it is apparently a walnut roulade!
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
Indeed. Theres a middle ground between constant interruption and just letting them spew pure spin, sometimes unconnected with the point.
Agreed but Marr did not hit the middle ground
If you say so, but your response would seem to have been on the abstract, that interviewes should just not interrupt, but it is necessary.
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
Well Quebec is not necessarily do or die either if the BQ get back in power and there is sufficient demand for it (perhaps if a Trump like leader ever became Tory PM, someone like businessman Kevin O'Leary who is running for the Canadian Tory leadership). However the second referendum defeat set the cause back decades.
In terms of countries splitting, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, India and Pakistan, indeed the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are just some examples
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ... .... from the Scottish line.
That makes no sense as James was knocked down to 1.
The Convention of the higher regnal number taking precedence was instituted after James VI and I to prevent that happening again.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
Of course Scotland could survive independently. It just has an extremely advantageous arrangement at the present time and giving up those advantages would come at a severe cost.
There is an argument, which you have made, that some of those weaknesses are a consequence of the Union. To the extent that the UK is dominated by the demands and needs of London and its powerhouse economy that is probably true. But that does not make that dependency any less of a fact nor does it address the problem.
If we are to become independent we need to get our economy in a viable state. That means getting our tax revenues and public expenditure much more in balance, giving serious thought as to what our strengths are to be and how our public sector can help with that, trying to encourage indigenous businesses to grow and achieve critical mass, get serious about addressing the deficiencies in the education we give to our children and the training we give to our young people. The Scottish Parliament has a range of powers over most of these areas now but when everything is looked at through the lens of independence and a reluctance to challenge vested interests we really get nowhere.
David, the union can never be equal for Scotland, given the size of England it will always be a priority so we can never improve our position. Our only chance was when we had oil which would have given a boost for 40 years to change things and we saw what Westminster did with that, impoverished Scotland , wrecked our economy and wasted the money. Now after they hav emade a pigs ear of it they deride Scotland for having a deficit, of their making. Our only hope is to get out , take our medicine and build a decent independent country of our own choosing. I may not matter to people like you and I who make loads of money and can live well, as a whole the union is killing Scotland and if we stay in it Scotland will continue to decline as Westminster cut the pocket money allowance. We need to get a backbone and make our own future. It would not be better for me but would be better for Scotland and its future.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
Funny lot south of the border ....
Scotland is I believe unique in the world in not have Coca-cola as the most popular carbonated soft drink
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
And on proposed boundaries: SNP 49, CON 4, LAB 0, LD 0.
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Clydesdale and Eskdale - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South West and Central - CON gain from SNP Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
Haven't seen the interview but I tend to agree with Big G here - let politicians hang themselves with long rambling answers if necessary: viewers are quite capable of seeing through them. Interviewers should however be sharp enough to notice that the question hasn't been answered or the answer is flawed - let someone ratltle on and then politely saying "You've replied for two minutes but you've not actually told us the answer to the question, which was..."
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
None are desperate to come back that is for sure and none will be poorer than they would have been had they remained as colonies like Scotland.
The growth of India, Hong Kong, Singapore etc is in large part due to following much of the British economic model. It was Scotland who asked to join the UK in the firstplace when it was at a point of near bankruptcy and given Scotland sends most of its exports to the rest of the UK it is far more reliant on UK trade than any other Commonwealth nation
You obviously have not majored on history of the UK. It was twelve rogues that signed it up , not Scotland. Commonwealth countries were 100% dependent on trade with UK and none seenm to have had issues or are desperate to return and yet UK still trades with them , so your inference that anything would change re Scottish/Engglish trade is not valid.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
Funny lot south of the border ....
One of my Scottish relations has just posted a picture of her latest cooking effort. I thought it was a vegetarian haggis, but it is apparently a walnut roulade!
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
The Quebec case was different, however, in that it led to a constitutional settlement. The Act of Clarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act. Canada put in the hard yards to resolve difficult questions of their fundamental connstitution. Not a position either side has reached over here as of yet.
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ... .... from the Scottish line.
That makes no sense as James was knocked down to 1.
The Convention of the higher regnal number taking precedence was instituted after James VI and I to prevent that happening again.
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
Indeed. Theres a middle ground between constant interruption and just letting them spew pure spin, sometimes unconnected with the point.
Agreed but Marr did not hit the middle ground
If you say so, but your response would seem to have been on the abstract, that interviewes should just not interrupt, but it is necessary.
No - I do accept that interviewers need to keep the control of the response but today Marr was 'but' every 5 seconds or so
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
The Quebec case was different, however, in that it led to a constitutional settlement. The Act of Clarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act. Canada put in the hard yards to resolve difficult questions of their fundamental connstitution. Not a position either side has reached over here as of yet.
Canada just gave Quebec more devolved powers than the rest of Canada, which is not that different from where we are heading with Scotland
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
This is presumably on swings since the 2015 Westminster election? Since then there has been a 2016 Holyrood election with constituencies that broadly overlap with the Holyrood ones, that would indicate on results at the time that the three Conseravtive gains from the SNP noted above would happen, Edinburgh South and Orkney and Shetland would stay as they are and East Dumbartonshire and East Lothian would switch from SNP to Labour.
I am doubtful about the last two, given the poor ratings for Labour currently. I think Edinburgh South likely to remain Labour on tactical grounds; Orkney and Shetland remain Lib Dem. I would add Edinburgh West as a Lib Dem gain. The three Conservative gains from the SNP will happen. There may be others where the Conservatives are in a fight with the SNP and there is a big enough Labour vote to squeeze.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
This is presumably on swings since the 2015 Westminster election? Since then there has been a 2016 Holyrood election with constituencies that broadly overlap with the Holyrood ones, that would indicate on results at the time that the three Conseravtive gains noted above would happen, Edinburgh South and Orkney and Shetland would stay as they are and East Dumbartonshire and East Lothian would switch from SNP to Labour.
I am doubtful about the last two, given the poor ratings for Labour currently. I think Edinburgh South likely to remain Labour on tactical grounds; Orkney and Shetland remain Lib Dem. I would add Edinburgh West as a Lib Dem gain. The three Conservative gains noted will happen. There may be others where the Conservatives are in a fight with the SNP and there is a big enough Labour vote to squeeze.
Hard to see Lib Dems gaining anywhere, they are circling the drain, led by an absolute dumpling , their only MP is outed as a lying grasping no-gooder. They will just about hold on to their one seat at best.
When the Queen's father died it was noted that the new monarch would be the first Elizabeth of Scotland. Accordingly the convention of higher regnal number was instituted. Thus the future King William will be William V whereas in the future we would have David III, Alexander IV or Macbeth II ... .... from the Scottish line.
That makes no sense as James was knocked down to 1.
The Convention of the higher regnal number taking precedence was instituted after James VI and I to prevent that happening again.
Indeed so. When the present Queen succeeded.
They just make it up as they go along
Yes, that's pretty much the definition of our constitution.
The deal with the EU is being enormously exaggerated in its importance. In reality, post Brexit, we will struggle to tell the difference on a day to day basis. I am confident that we will have tariff free trade, that we will get equivalence to regulation in financial services, that there will be some sort of fast track for EU citizens who want to come here making it easier for them than it is for other parts of the world, that those already here will have unqualified rights to remain, that there will be things in the deal that upset some Brexiteers and some remainers but the majority of us will accept it and move on.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
No. The UK is a viable, albeit fairly heavily indebted country. Scotland currently isn't. The UK has a currency. Scotland doesn't. The UK has an internal, deeply integrated market of 66m people. Scotland 5.3m. The UK has a £1.7 trn sized economy. Scotland, regrettably, has a branch economy that is increasingly dependent on servicing the needs of its much larger neighbour and cannot risk any disruption to that.
None are desperate to come back that is for sure and none will be poorer than they would have been had they remained as colonies like Scotland.
The growth of India, Hong Kong, nation
You obviously have not majored on history of the UK. It was twelve rogues that signed it up , not Scotland. Commonwealth countries were 100% Idependent on trade with UK and none seenm to have had issues or are desperate to return and yet UK still trades with them , so your inference that anything would change re Scottish/Engglish trade is not valid.
It was the Scottish Parliament which signed up to the Union. No Commonwealth country does more than 50% of its trade with the UK as Scotland does and no Commonwealth country was in the EEA with the UK as Scotland is now and will have customs duties imposed on their exports to the UK when the UK leaves the EEA as a hypothetical independent Scotland would when it rejoins the EEA as Sturgeon wants
Amateur hour changes from Truss on pre-recorded cross examination today. She should have taken the opportunity to also introduce anonymity for the accused so that false allegations cannot ruin a person's life.
Wednesday debate in the Scottish Parliament will be interesting following this mornings interviews when Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale both confirming they will vote against Nicola, presumably joined by the Lib Dems. So Nicola will only pass it with the Greens vote so hardly demonstrating an overwhelming will for the second referendum.
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
Indeed. Theres a middle ground between constant interruption and just letting them spew pure spin, sometimes unconnected with the point.
Agreed but Marr did not hit the middle ground
If you say so, but your response would seem to have been on the abstract, that interviewes should just not interrupt, but it is necessary.
No - I do accept that interviewers need to keep the control of the response but today Marr was 'but' every 5 seconds or so
I do not imagine you would have cared if it was Corbyn just drop it who gives one.Marr has done brilliant to recover and get back to work after his stroke.
You miss my point. The EU cannot guarantee the rights of UK nationals in the EU post Brexit (unless we remain in the EEA with all that means) as this is a national rather than an EU competence.
It would be a Spanish govt decision to keep the Costa Geriatrica, not an EU one.
And if Spain signs the exit Treaty covering this it will do so as Spain
Mr. Max, that (anonymity for those accused of sex crimes, until convicted) was in the Coalition's early plans, but there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, so they backed down.
David, can you explain why Scotland is the only country in the world that cannot survive independently, why multitudes of them prosper and are happier , healthier and wealthier than Scotland in its current dependent colony position. How are all the other commonwealth countries impoverished and begging to be part of the empire again.
The English believe so because Scotland has deep fried mars bars as the national dish, iron bru as the favoured drink and men in pleated skirts chucking large tree trunks as the national sport.
Funny lot south of the border ....
One of my Scottish relations has just posted a picture of her latest cooking effort. I thought it was a vegetarian haggis, but it is apparently a walnut roulade!
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
This is presumably on swings since the 2015 Westminster election? Since then there has been a 2016 Holyrood election with constituencies that broadly overlap with the Holyrood ones, that would indicate on results at the time that the three Conseravtive gains noted above would happen, Edinburgh South and Orkney and Shetland would stay as they are and East Dumbartonshire and East Lothian would switch from SNP to Labour.
I am doubtful about the last two, given the poor ratings for Labour currently. I think Edinburgh South likely to remain Labour on tactical grounds; Orkney and Shetland remain Lib Dem. I would add Edinburgh West as a Lib Dem gain. The three Conservative gains noted will happen. There may be others where the Conservatives are in a fight with the SNP and there is a big enough Labour vote to squeeze.
Hard to see Lib Dems gaining anywhere, they are circling the drain, led by an absolute dumpling , their only MP is outed as a lying grasping no-gooder. They will just about hold on to their one seat at best.
I am only proposing one Lib Dem gain from the SNP in a constituency where the sitting MP has an "interesting" career in buying up distressed properties from distressed owners and is currently subject to a police investigation for fraud. I rather think Mr Carmichael's issue is a mote to a beam on that comparison.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
I would be willing to bet considerable sums of money that SNP would not take Orkney and Shetland.
The SNP require a 1.8% swing to unseat Alistair Carmichael. The poll suggests the LDs are down about 4 points since the GE, and the SNP down 3 - not enough swing (~0.5%), and yet Electoral Calculus suggests an SNP gain with the LDs down 13 points.
Perhaps it takes into account the mathematical fact that, if the LDs are down 4 points across Scotland as a whole, they must have fallen by more in places of relative strength. After all, the LDs got less than 4% (rounded) in no fewer than 39 of the 59 Scottish seats in 2015.
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
The Quebec case was different, however, in that it led to a constitutional settlement. The Act of Clarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act. Canada put in the hard yards to resolve difficult questions of their fundamental connstitution. Not a position either side has reached over here as of yet.
Canada just gave Quebec more devolved powers than the rest of Canada, which is not that different from where we are heading with Scotland
Except that an Act of Parliament and a Supreme Court decision now exist BEFORE any referendum is called. Therefore avoiding the situation we now find ourselves in. Any future referendum will now take place with regard to these parameters.
Marr's interview with Ruth Davidson is shameful and irritating. He will not let her talk without continual interruptions by him throughout. He is as bad with this interview as I have seen him.
If he can stop her sounding off then he must have improved a million fold. It never usually matters to her.
No matter your views of the person being interviewed they should be permitted to provide their view without constant interruptions from the interviewer
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
Indeed. Theres a middle ground between constant interruption and just letting them spew pure spin, sometimes unconnected with the point.
Agreed but Marr did not hit the middle ground
If you say so, but your response would seem to have been on the abstract, that interviewes should just not interrupt, but it is necessary.
No - I do accept that interviewers need to keep the control of the response but today Marr was 'but' every 5 seconds or so
I do not imagine you would have cared if it was Corbyn just drop it who gives one.Marr has done brilliant to recover and get back to work after his stroke.
I would be the same on Corbyn - he has done well to recover but that is not a reason to object if he oversteps the mark as he did today
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
The Quebec case was different, however, in that it led to a constitutional settlement. The Act of Clarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act. Canada put in the hard yards to resolve difficult questions of their fundamental connstitution. Not a position either side has reached over here as of yet.
Canada just gave Quebec more devolved powers than the rest of Canada, which is not that different from where we are heading with Scotland
Except that an Act of Parliament and a Supreme Court decision now exist BEFORE any referendum is called. Therefore avoiding the situation we now find ourselves in. Any future referendum will now take place with regard to these parameters.
Nope, if the BQ won a majority in the Quebec Parliament the Canadian government would find themselves in exactly the same position as the UK government now find themselves given it requires the UK government to pass an Act of Parliament before Scotland can have another vote even despite the SNP majority at Holyrood. The 'Clarity' Act actually does nothing to change that
And the same thing for Scotland vis a vis the Union?
.
It was the Scottish Parliament which signed up to the Union. No Commonwealth country does more than 50% of its trade with the UK as Scotland does and no Commonwealth country was in the EEA with the UK as Scotland is now and will have customs duties imposed on their exports to the UK when the UK leaves the EEA as a hypothetical independent Scotland would when it rejoins the EEA as Sturgeon wants
Just a small sample, you will see "compensation" mentioned, otherwise known as "BRIBES" for taking on English debt. So a parcel of rogues took bribes and signed up Scotland to England's debts. Nothing has changed since.
Agreement of the Treaty
During 1706, the Treaty was agreed between Scotland and England, in negotiations in London. Burgh rights and legal traditions
England had been careful to give promises to Scots negotiators that Scotland would not lose out from union.
Councillors in Scottish Royal Burghs had sent a series of petitions to the Scottish Parliament during the debates, voicing concern about the Treaty. In response, English-approved changes to the Treaty guaranteed future burgh rights, and importantly, Scottish legal traditions. Taxation
Scots MPs feared higher taxation, but these fears were eased by English promises of guaranteed trade with English colonies, which would balance the effect of higher taxes.
The English Government also gave guarantees over salt, malt and wool, stating that Scotland’s trade in these goods would not be affected. Compensation
Most significant was the guarantee of payment to various Scots of The Equivalent, a sum of £398,085.10.
This was equal to the cost of the Darien Scheme and was proposed as compensation for taking on English debt after union. This was a major attraction for those who had lost money in the Company of Scotland and who suddenly viewed union as beneficial for them personally.
The Treaty of Union was passed by the Scottish Parliament in early 1707.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
I would be willing to bet considerable sums of money that SNP would not take Orkney and Shetland.
The SNP require a 1.8% swing to unseat Alistair Carmichael. The poll suggests the LDs are down about 4 points since the GE, and the SNP down 3 - not enough swing (~0.5%), and yet Electoral Calculus suggests an SNP gain with the LDs down 13 points.
Perhaps it takes into account the mathematical fact that, if the LDs are down 4 points across Scotland as a whole, they must have fallen by more in places of relative strength. After all, the LDs got less than 4% in no fewer than 39 of the 59 Scottish seats in 2015.
The basic picture is that the SNP will sweep up the vast majority of constituencies because they are almost guaranteed to be the largest party anywhere in Scotland. The seats we are talking about are on the margins where, as the recent Holyrood election showed, tactical voting for alternative unionist parties comes into play. UNS is not useful as a predictor for those seats.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
This is presumably on swings since the 2015 Westminster election? Since then there has been a 2016 Holyrood election with constituencies that broadly overlap with the Holyrood ones, that would indicate on results at the time that the three Conseravtive gains noted above would happen, Edinburgh South and Orkney and Shetland would stay as they are and East Dumbartonshire and East Lothian would switch from SNP to Labour.
I am doubtful about the last two, given the poor ratings for Labour currently. I think Edinburgh South likely to remain Labour on tactical grounds; Orkney and Shetland remain Lib Dem. I would add Edinburgh West as a Lib Dem gain. The three Conservative gains noted will happen. There may be others where the Conservatives are in a fight with the SNP and there is a big enough Labour vote to squeeze.
Hard to see Lib Dems gaining anywhere, they are circling the drain, led by an absolute dumpling , their only MP is outed as a lying grasping no-gooder. They will just about hold on to their one seat at best.
I am only proposing one Lib Dem gain from the SNP in a constituency where the sitting MP has an "interesting" career in buying up distressed properties from distressed owners and is currently subject to a police investigation for fraud. I rather think Mr Carmichael's issue is a mote to a beam on that comparison.
Hmmm, have not seen anything on this police investigation , but can understand people who sell when desperate not being happy etc. and woudl moan about it , but it happens every day on every type of asset. Carmichael has been proven and convicted of being a liar there are no doubts about it. Facts rather than speculation suit me better.
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
The Quebec case was different, however, in that it led to a constitutional settlement. The Act of Clarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act. Canada put in the hard yards to resolve difficult questions of their fundamental connstitution. Not a position either side has reached over here as of yet.
Canada just gave Quebec more devolved powers than the rest of Canada, which is not that different from where we are heading with Scotland
Except that an Act of Parliament and a Supreme Court decision now exist BEFORE any referendum is called. Therefore avoiding the situation we now find ourselves in. Any future referendum will now take place with regard to these parameters.
Nope, if the BQ won a majority in the Quebec Parliament the Canadian government would find themselves in exactly the same position as the UK government now find themselves given it requires the UK government to pass an Act of Parliament before Scotland can have another vote even despite the SNP majority at Holyrood. The 'Clarity' Act actually does nothing to change that
Except that an Act has already been passed. ps. they are the PQ. BQ is the Federal representation.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
I would be willing to bet considerable sums of money that SNP would not take Orkney and Shetland.
The SNP require a 1.8% swing to unseat Alistair Carmichael. The poll suggests the LDs are down about 4 points since the GE, and the SNP down 3 - not enough swing (~0.5%), and yet Electoral Calculus suggests an SNP gain with the LDs down 13 points.
Perhaps it takes into account the mathematical fact that, if the LDs are down 4 points across Scotland as a whole, they must have fallen by more in places of relative strength. After all, the LDs got less than 4% in no fewer than 39 of the 59 Scottish seats in 2015.
The basic picture is that the SNP will sweep up the vast majority of constituencies because they are almost guaranteed to be the largest party anywhere in Scotland. The seats we are talking about are on the margins where, as the recent Holyrood election showed, tactical voting for alternative unionist parties comes into play. UNS is not useful as a predictor for those seats.
You only need look at the party conferences, all others could be counted in tens, whereas the SNP is in thousands, small halls almost empty compared to very large auditorium packed out. That is the reality of politics in Scotland.
Hmmm, have not seen anything on this police investigation , but can understand people who sell when desperate not being happy etc. and woudl moan about it , but it happens every day on every type of asset. Carmichael has been proven and convicted of being a liar there are no doubts about it. Facts rather than speculation suit me better.
On the facts, the defendant Alistair Carmichael won his case, although the judges made some pretty harsh comments about him as a witness. I won't go into the detail of the allegations against Michelle Thomson - you can check those online - but they go beyond dissatisfied customers of her firm. Ultimately voters will make up their own minds.
Anyone have Scottish Westminster seats based on the above assuming UNS?
Baxter says this would produce: SNP 54, CON 5, LAB 0, LD 0.
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
I would be willing to bet considerable sums of money that SNP would not take Orkney and Shetland.
The SNP require a 1.8% swing to unseat Alistair Carmichael. The poll suggests the LDs are down about 4 points since the GE, and the SNP down 3 - not enough swing (~0.5%), and yet Electoral Calculus suggests an SNP gain with the LDs down 13 points.
Perhaps it takes into account the mathematical fact that, if the LDs are down 4 points across Scotland as a whole, they must have fallen by more in places of relative strength. After all, the LDs got less than 4% (rounded) in no fewer than 39 of the 59 Scottish seats in 2015.
The Scotish parliament Orkney and Shetland results make it clear the SNP will not take the combined seat at Westminster.
Wednesday debate in the Scottish Parliament will be interesting following this mornings interviews when Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale both confirming they will vote against Nicola, presumably joined by the Lib Dems. So Nicola will only pass it with the Greens vote so hardly demonstrating an overwhelming will for the second referendum.
Wednesday debate in the Scottish Parliament will be interesting following this mornings interviews when Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale both confirming they will vote against Nicola, presumably joined by the Lib Dems. So Nicola will only pass it with the Greens vote so hardly demonstrating an overwhelming will for the second referendum.
They will rue the day
Team Ruth actually voting against a government bill will be a novelty rather than abstaining and then trying to take credit.
Mr. Borough, I'd still be greatly surprised if Le Pen won.
Aa Jean Marie Le Pen said in an interview yesterday, a Le Pen win 'is possible but not probably' however he also said one 'bloody terrorist attack' could change everything. He also said she was aiming for 51% unlike the 25% he aimed for which would make it tighter than 2001 and he also expressed some surprising admiration for Fillon and Le Pen would try and win over Fillon voters in the runoff with Macron
Sophy Ridge (Sky on Sundays) is proving a very good political journalist with a much less confrontation technique than most and a good questioning style
There seems to be a consensus that the SNP get only two bites at the apple, and if the next referendum is lost, it's all over, like in Quebec. But we only have the Quebec case to go on, there are so few other examples to draw on.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
The Quebec case was different, however, in that it led to a constitutional settlement. The Act of Clarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act. Canada put in the hard yards to resolve difficult questions of their fundamental connstitution. Not a position either side has reached over here as of yet.
Canada just gave Quebec more devolved powers than the rest of Canada, which is not that different from where we are heading with Scotland
Except that an Act of Parliament and a Supreme Court decision now exist BEFORE any referendum is called. Therefore avoiding the situation we now find ourselves in. Any future referendum will now take place with regard to these parameters.
Nope, if the BQ won a majority in the Quebec Parliament the Canadian government would find themselves in exactly the same position as the UK government now find themselves given it requires the UK government to pass an Act of Parliament before Scotland can have another vote even despite the SNP majority at Holyrood. The 'Clarity' Act actually does nothing to change that
Except that an Act has already been passed. ps. they are the PQ. BQ is the Federal representation.
Yes and as I pointed out that Act means zilch, if the PQ win a majority in Quebec and demand another independence referendum it would be the Canadian Parliament and PM who would have to block it just as in the UK
Hmmm, have not seen anything on this police investigation , but can understand people who sell when desperate not being happy etc. and woudl moan about it , but it happens every day on every type of asset. Carmichael has been proven and convicted of being a liar there are no doubts about it. Facts rather than speculation suit me better.
On the facts, the defendant Alistair Carmichael won his case, although the judges made some pretty harsh comments about him as a witness. I won't go into the detail of the allegations against Michelle Thomson - you can check those online - but they go beyond dissatisfied customers of her firm. Ultimately voters will make up their own minds.
Still not a 100% convinced, it seems to be taking an awful long time to prove anything against her, other than benefitting from people who were in hard times. On Carmichael , the judge clearly stated it was on a technicality , that he was a total liar and gave him no damages. At this point Thomson is innocent till proven guilty other than of using typical Tory ways to enrich herself, which may indeed deter some voters. Certainly would not like to know either of them mind you.
“The fact that the American president welcomes the U.K.’s decision to leave the EU and is encouraging other countries to follow suit is an unprecedented phenomenon. We need to engage in intensive dialogue,” he said, adding that Brussels should take the “protectionist tenor” of Trump administration seriously. As for the Brexit negotiations, the Commission has “everything prepared down to the last detail,” said Juncker, warning that “the U.K. will need to prepare itself to be treated as a third country. There will be no half-membership or cherry picking. In Europe, the choice is to eat what’s on the table or not come to the table at all.”
“But it seems to me that there are fewer and fewer full-time Europeans these days and more and more part-time Europeans. The part-time Europeans take what they think is their due from Europe. But they do nothing to make sure that there will be something to share at all in the end,” said Juncker.
Asked by Bild am Sonntag which EU leaders he considered to be “full-time Europeans,” Juncker first named German Chancellor Angela Merkel — “without a shadow of a doubt” — followed by French President François Hollande, Slovenia’s Miro Cerar and Belgium’s Charles Michel. Juncker appeared keen, however, to avoid the appearance of favoritism in Germany’s coming election, saying both Merkel and the former European Parliament President Martin Schulz “have what it takes to be chancellor.”
Regarding Erdoğan‘s comments at a rally Saturday that he would restore capital punishment, Juncker said: “If Turkey were to reintroduce the death penalty, that would be tantamount to breaking off negotiations.” The millions of Turks living in the EU, however, are well-integrated and contribute to Europe’s property, he said, adding: “Not all Turks are little Erdoğans.” http://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-marine-le-pen-wont-win/
Wednesday debate in the Scottish Parliament will be interesting following this mornings interviews when Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale both confirming they will vote against Nicola, presumably joined by the Lib Dems. So Nicola will only pass it with the Greens vote so hardly demonstrating an overwhelming will for the second referendum.
They will rue the day
They will be their usual ineffective useless subserviant London agents blindly following orders from HQ. Asses among thoroughbreds.
This is just a bizarre thread header. Does Alastair seriously think that the House of Commons will not debate every aspect of any potential deal with the EU? May has to remember, as the late, great Iain M Banks put it, where the off switch is. If her approach to these negotiations does not meet the approval of the House of Commons she can be removed, just like Chamberlain was.
If you are wondering where these different views and approaches might come from try reading the Evening Standard. I hear they have a new editor.
However, her starting point absolutely has to be a hard Brexit as anything less would show weakness.
Of course the initial deal is just the start and our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve and develop over time for as long as that Institution exists.
It's not just tariffs. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union has the potential to considerably increase the cost of doing business - both financially and in terms of time.
Not really. It will only affect those who import and then re-export. It will become routine. Remember that the US is our biggest single trading partner and we don't even have a trade deal with them. Businesses adapt and cope.
Says a lawyer who neither imports nor exports. I don't mind paying the tariffs as such. It is the administrative hassle, returns, money stuck in deferment bonds that concern me.
DavidL: Half the country is involved with trading, one way or the other. Britain is a trading nation - not a nation of lawyers.
Wednesday debate in the Scottish Parliament will be interesting following this mornings interviews when Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale both confirming they will vote against Nicola, presumably joined by the Lib Dems. So Nicola will only pass it with the Greens vote so hardly demonstrating an overwhelming will for the second referendum.
They will rue the day
Team Ruth actually voting against a government bill will be a novelty rather than abstaining and then trying to take credit.
SLab bound to get a boost from taking a principled position in voting with the SCons.
Comments
It was the best deal available once. Now it isn't and there is very little sign that it will improve.
If Brexit is an economic disaster I doubt Mr & Mrs Leave in Sunderland or Stoke will question whether they looked into it sufficiently before voting for it, they will blame politicians who "should have warned us".
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - CON gain from SNP
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP
Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP
Edinburgh South - CON gain from LAB
Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
https://tinyurl.com/WestScotland
https://tinyurl.com/EastScotland
Funny lot south of the border ....
She was trying to give a speech not answer the questions, if Marr hadn't stopped her she'd still be going now
There is an argument, which you have made, that some of those weaknesses are a consequence of the Union. To the extent that the UK is dominated by the demands and needs of London and its powerhouse economy that is probably true. But that does not make that dependency any less of a fact nor does it address the problem.
If we are to become independent we need to get our economy in a viable state. That means getting our tax revenues and public expenditure much more in balance, giving serious thought as to what our strengths are to be and how our public sector can help with that, trying to encourage indigenous businesses to grow and achieve critical mass, get serious about addressing the deficiencies in the education we give to our children and the training we give to our young people. The Scottish Parliament has a range of powers over most of these areas now but when everything is looked at through the lens of independence and a reluctance to challenge vested interests we really get nowhere.
It may well be the case, but there is too much assumed certainty on this point. We can't really extrapolate from 1 case to say that this next vote is do or die for the SNP.
Edited for FFS
In terms of countries splitting, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, India and Pakistan, indeed the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are just some examples
Our only hope is to get out , take our medicine and build a decent independent country of our own choosing.
I may not matter to people like you and I who make loads of money and can live well, as a whole the union is killing Scotland and if we stay in it Scotland will continue to decline as Westminster cut the pocket money allowance. We need to get a backbone and make our own future. It would not be better for me but would be better for Scotland and its future.
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - CON gain from SNP
Clydesdale and Eskdale - CON gain from SNP
Dumfries and Galloway - CON gain from SNP
Edinburgh South West and Central - CON gain from SNP
Orkney and Shetland - SNP gain from LD
http://tinyurl.com/WestScotlandNew
http://tinyurl.com/EastScotlandNew
I am doubtful about the last two, given the poor ratings for Labour currently. I think Edinburgh South likely to remain Labour on tactical grounds; Orkney and Shetland remain Lib Dem. I would add Edinburgh West as a Lib Dem gain. The three Conservative gains from the SNP will happen. There may be others where the Conservatives are in a fight with the SNP and there is a big enough Labour vote to squeeze.
An Edinburgh dish, I understand.
Perhaps it takes into account the mathematical fact that, if the LDs are down 4 points across Scotland as a whole, they must have fallen by more in places of relative strength. After all, the LDs got less than 4% (rounded) in no fewer than 39 of the 59 Scottish seats in 2015.
http://www.politico.eu/article/britain-10-year-interim-zero-for-zero-trade-deal-brexit/
"European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker says far-right candidate Marine Le Pen won’t win France’s presidential election."
http://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-marine-le-pen-wont-win/
Carmichael has been proven and convicted of being a liar there are no doubts about it. Facts rather than speculation suit me better.
Still expect Macron-Le Pen in the second round.
There is in fact a tactical voting input on Electoral Calculus that people can play around with.
As for the Brexit negotiations, the Commission has “everything prepared down to the last detail,” said Juncker, warning that “the U.K. will need to prepare itself to be treated as a third country. There will be no half-membership or cherry picking. In Europe, the choice is to eat what’s on the table or not come to the table at all.”
“But it seems to me that there are fewer and fewer full-time Europeans these days and more and more part-time Europeans. The part-time Europeans take what they think is their due from Europe. But they do nothing to make sure that there will be something to share at all in the end,” said Juncker.
Asked by Bild am Sonntag which EU leaders he considered to be “full-time Europeans,” Juncker first named German Chancellor Angela Merkel — “without a shadow of a doubt” — followed by French President François Hollande, Slovenia’s Miro Cerar and Belgium’s Charles Michel.
Juncker appeared keen, however, to avoid the appearance of favoritism in Germany’s coming election, saying both Merkel and the former European Parliament President Martin Schulz “have what it takes to be chancellor.”
Regarding Erdoğan‘s comments at a rally Saturday that he would restore capital punishment, Juncker said: “If Turkey were to reintroduce the death penalty, that would be tantamount to breaking off negotiations.”
The millions of Turks living in the EU, however, are well-integrated and contribute to Europe’s property, he said, adding: “Not all Turks are little Erdoğans.”
http://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-marine-le-pen-wont-win/
DavidL: Half the country is involved with trading, one way or the other. Britain is a trading nation - not a nation of lawyers.
Boris just wants to go over there to 'patch up' with Melania.