HYFUD In recent days you have suggested we should all forego our foreign holidays and go to Pembrokeshire (state holiday camps?), a few days later you wanted to disenfranchise the regions, now you want to send troops into those regions. You also want to enforce the result of a democratic vote that was passed on a very small margin and was worded in the most broad terms without any verification process of what people may actually want even if it results in a zombie apocalypse. As they say 'no if no buts'.
Mr. Walker, any such veto power doesn't make sense as there's no English Parliament and thus no corresponding English veto. Unless you're actually asserting a majority of the electorate in every part (well, the four) of the UK has to support something for it to happen.
Given politicians have dragged us closer and closer to the EU without recourse to the electorate it would not necessarily engender faith in politics to have them then throw up more barriers to departure, allowing a minority to overrule a majority (although such a requirement would at least have had some force had it been suggested pre-vote).
There seems to be an assumption that Wales will always stay with England.
Plaid Cymru currently top Assembly polling. Just as Northern Irish politics “de-unionised” in the 2000s with the rise of DUP/Sinn Féin and the decline of UUP/SDLP, and Scotland did in the 2010s with the collapse of Scottish Labour, it is entirely feasible for Wales to follow in the 2020s.
Once local politics is unaffiliated to national parties and dominated by nationalists, independence is on the horizon.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
The Tory Party seems to be working on the assumption that with the Union ended and Ireland reunited, their only route to a Parliamentary majority is to court the Little England vote.
Tragic
If Scotland are going to go and Ireland are going to go I'd like to put in a word for Hartlepool and wherever Philip Thompson lives.
I pretty much predicted that Yes would get a polling lead following Boris becoming PM, but I think it's somewhat premature for people to declare the end of the Union is nigh. Yes seems to get polling leads whenever something bad happens to the left of centre, whether it be Milliband's defeat or the initial EU referendum. Thing is within a month or two No starts polling above Yes again, when the initial shock/anger wears off. It might be that if no deal happens and is bad as some of us fear, Yes could maintain consistent polling leads, but that remains to be seen yet.
1) The FTSE100 is taking another fall owing to "trade war" concerns yet those in favour of us leaving without a Deal seem to think in this increasingly protectionist atmosphere FTAs are going to be strewn around like confetti. It's quite clear for all his rhetoric Trump won't agree an FTA with the UK which isn't anything other than wholly favourable to the US (why would he? He's not an Anglophile, he's an American nationalist).
2) It's curious that those who lecture on respecting the result of the 23/6/16 referendum (because it suits them now) are openly talking about shutting down the result of the 11/9/97 referendum which they opposed but which until now they have respected. Is the new intolerant Conservatism going to abolish the office of Mayor of London because it doesn't like the office holder?
3) On topic - I acted as an Agent to an SDP candidate in 1987. They had plenty of money to spend in a seat they couldn't possibly win and while there were resources to knock on doors, get members and deliverers and build up a local base, some of the SDP preferred glossy literature and open top buses which are fine to a point but it wasn't the kind of electioneering I found effective.
4) When discussing the Union, I think we are missing a key and growing component - "the British". These are the sons, daughters and indeed grandchildren of immigrants not just from Windrush but from the Indian Subcontinent and more recently those who have settled from other EU countries. "England" means nothing to them but they are British and for all Arlene Foster's ravings about cricket and for all the romanticised nostalgia about Britishness as a subset of suburban England, there is a new Britain out there - come to East Ham if you want to see it. New Britain embraces capitalism but it listens to bhangra and hip-hop and enjoys proper Asian food. It's brash at times but it's a rapidly developing culture and isn't rooted in the past and has no sentimental attachment to Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Sorry, which Spanish fascists are setting our laws? Or are you just talking gibberish?
Presumably MEPs. But under a PR system one sees all sorts of oddballs and undesirables elected - remember we sent Nick Griffin to Brussels not too long ago.
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Sorry, which Spanish fascists are setting our laws? Or are you just talking gibberish?
Presumably MEPs. But under a PR system one sees all sorts of oddballs and undesirables elected - remember we sent Nick Griffin to Brussels not too long ago.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
The Tory Party seems to be working on the assumption that with the Union ended and Ireland reunited, their only route to a Parliamentary majority is to court the Little England vote.
Tragic
This all began with Cameron's reaction to the Scottish referendum result in 2014. He could have been magnanimous, instead he chose English nationalism. He was a very poor Prime Minister.
There were 4m people/12% of the voting public who wanted to leave the EU. They pressured the government to give them what they wanted, which was a referendum. That's exactly how democracy is supposed to work. The referendum was lost for a number of reasons but it was a perfectly legitimate and democratic exercise. As of course would a second one be but that's a separate issue.
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Silly question but how do we have fascists in Spain setting our laws?
When Spain did exactly what HYUFD proposes were they stripped of their EU Commissioner? Their MEPs? Their votes in the European Council?
What was done is disgusting and has no place in a free democracy.
You have absolutely no idea what was done. The Catalan government by-passed mandated Catalan Parliamentary rules to call a referendum. This was declared illegal by courts in Catalonia, which ordered the Catalan government not to proceed. The Catalan government refused to obey the court orders and went ahead anyway. The Catalan courts ordered the Catalan police to seize ballot boxes, but the Catalan police chief - who had been appointed by the separatist government and was himself a separatist - refused to cooperate, so the Guardia Civil was asked to do it instead. There is no democracy anywhere that allows politicians to pick and choose the laws they follow. They have to obey them all. That applies in Spain as much as it does in the UK.
1) The FTSE100 is taking another fall owing to "trade war" concerns yet those in favour of us leaving without a Deal seem to think in this increasingly protectionist atmosphere FTAs are going to be strewn around like confetti. It's quite clear for all his rhetoric Trump won't agree an FTA with the UK which isn't anything other than wholly favourable to the US (why would he? He's not an Anglophile, he's an American nationalist).
2) It's curious that those who lecture on respecting the result of the 23/6/16 referendum (because it suits them now) are openly talking about shutting down the result of the 11/9/97 referendum which they opposed but which until now they have respected. Is the new intolerant Conservatism going to abolish the office of Mayor of London because it doesn't like the office holder?
3) On topic - I acted as an Agent to an SDP candidate in 1987. They had plenty of money to spend in a seat they couldn't possibly win and while there were resources to knock on doors, get members and deliverers and build up a local base, some of the SDP preferred glossy literature and open top buses which are fine to a point but it wasn't the kind of electioneering I found effective.
4) When discussing the Union, I think we are missing a key and growing component - "the British". These are the sons, daughters and indeed grandchildren of immigrants not just from Windrush but from the Indian Subcontinent and more recently those who have settled from other EU countries. "England" means nothing to them but they are British and for all Arlene Foster's ravings about cricket and for all the romanticised nostalgia about Britishness as a subset of suburban England, there is a new Britain out there - come to East Ham if you want to see it. New Britain embraces capitalism but it listens to bhangra and hip-hop and enjoys proper Asian food. It's brash at times but it's a rapidly developing culture and isn't rooted in the past and has no sentimental attachment to Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Re 3) - Not been on the LD training courses obviously.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
The Tory Party seems to be working on the assumption that with the Union ended and Ireland reunited, their only route to a Parliamentary majority is to court the Little England vote.
Tragic
This all began with Cameron's reaction to the Scottish referendum result in 2014. He could have been magnanimous, instead he chose English nationalism. He was a very poor Prime Minister.
There were 4m people/12% of the voting public who wanted to leave the EU. They pressured the government to give them what they wanted, which was a referendum. That's exactly how democracy is supposed to work. The referendum was lost for a number of reasons but it was a perfectly legitimate and democratic exercise. As of course would a second one be but that's a separate issue.
That was not my point. Go back to Cameron's response to the No vote in 2014.
1) The FTSE100 is taking another fall owing to "trade war" concerns yet those in favour of us leaving without a Deal seem to think in this increasingly protectionist atmosphere FTAs are going to be strewn around like confetti. It's quite clear for all his rhetoric Trump won't agree an FTA with the UK which isn't anything other than wholly favourable to the US (why would he? He's not an Anglophile, he's an American nationalist).
2) It's curious that those who lecture on respecting the result of the 23/6/16 referendum (because it suits them now) are openly talking about shutting down the result of the 11/9/97 referendum which they opposed but which until now they have respected. Is the new intolerant Conservatism going to abolish the office of Mayor of London because it doesn't like the office holder?
3) On topic - I acted as an Agent to an SDP candidate in 1987. They had plenty of money to spend in a seat they couldn't possibly win and while there were resources to knock on doors, get members and deliverers and build up a local base, some of the SDP preferred glossy literature and open top buses which are fine to a point but it wasn't the kind of electioneering I found effective.
4) When discussing the Union, I think we are missing a key and growing component - "the British". These are the sons, daughters and indeed grandchildren of immigrants not just from Windrush but from the Indian Subcontinent and more recently those who have settled from other EU countries. "England" means nothing to them but they are British and for all Arlene Foster's ravings about cricket and for all the romanticised nostalgia about Britishness as a subset of suburban England, there is a new Britain out there - come to East Ham if you want to see it. New Britain embraces capitalism but it listens to bhangra and hip-hop and enjoys proper Asian food. It's brash at times but it's a rapidly developing culture and isn't rooted in the past and has no sentimental attachment to Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Yes, on 3 many of the SDP were utterly clueless about the reality of third party politics and seemed to imagine that waving the flag and a national swing would see them home in seats up and down the country. Topping the polls before the Falklands war hit did nothing to disillusion them, and the rude awakening had to wait for the 1983 election.
You can see a reflection of that in the attitude of some of the TIGs, who seemed to think their existing reputation would be enough to carry them through without doing any serious thinking or work about the launch of their new party.
People who are used to getting elected on the back of party swing rather than from the hard graft it takes to beat the system as a third party candidate often find the required transition of mindset very difficult.
Mr. Walker, any such veto power doesn't make sense as there's no English Parliament and thus no corresponding English veto. Unless you're actually asserting a majority of the electorate in every part (well, the four) of the UK has to support something for it to happen.
Given politicians have dragged us closer and closer to the EU without recourse to the electorate it would not necessarily engender faith in politics to have them then throw up more barriers to departure, allowing a minority to overrule a majority (although such a requirement would at least have had some force had it been suggested pre-vote).
As I say, we have a quasi-federal system, not a true one.
The challenge is what to do next (I don’t think an English Parliament helps) but I think you are mistaken that simply riding roughshod over Scotland and Northern Ireland in the name of “the will of the people” is something folks are going to just suck up.
Ultimately, democracy relies on consent. There is insufficient consent across the country, and with particular groups, for Brexit to be successful.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
As an aside, what is Boris' actual plan (I use the term loosely)?
Run down the clock and blame the EU?
Hope the EU offers a fig leaf, pronounce it a glorious oaken triumph, and resubmit the deal?
Announce new spending every other day and hope nobody pays attention to anything else?
Still my view that he expects (and is trying to ensure) that he is defeated in Parliament so he can unleash Cummings's Parliament v People election plan.
Everyone can see it coming, apart from the lemons in the Labour Party.
The lemons want an election too.
But given the dynamics of this Parliament I see no alternative plan. Pussyfooting around won't get a majority as May found so what does Boris have to lose?
Go hell for leather for glory or an election. If anyone blinks you win and get glory. If nobody does you get your election on the strongest possible footing.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Sorry, which Spanish fascists are setting our laws? Or are you just talking gibberish?
Presumably MEPs. But under a PR system one sees all sorts of oddballs and undesirables elected - remember we sent Nick Griffin to Brussels not too long ago.
To be pedantic, we sent him to Strasbourg.
Still wasn't nearly far enough.
Unlike you to be the pedantic one on here
Sadly, transporting him to Australia wasn’t an option any more.
Which reminds me - cricket match to watch and bet on.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
The Tory Party seems to be working on the assumption that with the Union ended and Ireland reunited, their only route to a Parliamentary majority is to court the Little England vote.
Tragic
This all began with Cameron's reaction to the Scottish referendum result in 2014. He could have been magnanimous, instead he chose English nationalism. He was a very poor Prime Minister.
There were 4m people/12% of the voting public who wanted to leave the EU. They pressured the government to give them what they wanted, which was a referendum. That's exactly how democracy is supposed to work. The referendum was lost for a number of reasons but it was a perfectly legitimate and democratic exercise. As of course would a second one be but that's a separate issue.
That was not my point. Go back to Cameron's response to the No vote in 2014.
Oh. I thought it might not be but I just ploughed on regardless. What was his response?
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Silly question but how do we have fascists in Spain setting our laws?
When Spain did exactly what HYUFD proposes were they stripped of their EU Commissioner? Their MEPs? Their votes in the European Council?
What was done is disgusting and has no place in a free democracy.
You have absolutely no idea what was done. The Catalan government by-passed mandated Catalan Parliamentary rules to call a referendum. This was declared illegal by courts in Catalonia, which ordered the Catalan government not to proceed. The Catalan government refused to obey the court orders and went ahead anyway. The Catalan courts ordered the Catalan police to seize ballot boxes, but the Catalan police chief - who had been appointed by the separatist government and was himself a separatist - refused to cooperate, so the Guardia Civil was asked to do it instead. There is no democracy anywhere that allows politicians to pick and choose the laws they follow. They have to obey them all. That applies in Spain as much as it does in the UK.
So you side with HYUFD in backing what was done in Spain and thinking it would be acceptable here?
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
The Tory Party seems to be working on the assumption that with the Union ended and Ireland reunited, their only route to a Parliamentary majority is to court the Little England vote.
Tragic
What, because prior to the referendum, Plan A was to win back 30-40 seats in Scotland? The Tories won precisely one seat outside England and Wales at the 2015 election, in case you'd forgotten.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Sorry, which Spanish fascists are setting our laws? Or are you just talking gibberish?
Presumably MEPs. But under a PR system one sees all sorts of oddballs and undesirables elected - remember we sent Nick Griffin to Brussels not too long ago.
You mean like Wiggin, Fysh, Tredinnick, Kawczynski, Paterson, Davies and McVey? Not to mention Baker, Bridgen & Francois.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
That would be fantastic. Westminster would be (rightly) destroyed in the ensuing civil disorder.
It is what Spain did in Catalonia and Madrid and the Cortez are still standing
Err, that really doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to sent the police in to stop political activity.
The best argument against Scottish independence is for the U.K. to make a success of leaving the EU, that’s where all the energies need to be put for the next few years.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
Given that was your view the day after the referendum and was based on our own bias rather than any actual facts, I would suggest you are not best placed to make such judgements.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
I'm neutral on the matter. I think Scotland is probably better off part of the UK - they have a decent amount of devolution anyway - but it's not for me to stop them going independent if that is what they want.
If the UK leaving the EU is an apparent logistical nightmare then Scotland leaving the UK after 300 years will surely be a bigger one. Small example - I had to contact HMRC Self Assessment the other day - it's based in Glasgow. How many other UK government agencies are based in Scotland? How will that work if suddenly they are in a foreign country? How many jobs lost in Scotland if all the functions move south?
How many UK government agencies are based in England and Wales. How many jobs created in Scotland if all the functions move North. Not hard to guess who would gain most jobs and as a clue they would not be moving south. Also most of the HMRC jobs are already planned to be moved south in any case.
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Sorry, which Spanish fascists are setting our laws? Or are you just talking gibberish?
Presumably MEPs. But under a PR system one sees all sorts of oddballs and undesirables elected - remember we sent Nick Griffin to Brussels not too long ago.
You mean like Wiggin, Fysh, Tredinnick, Kawczynski, Paterson, Davies and McVey? Not to mention Baker, Bridgen & Francois.
Philip Thompson was trying to score a cheap point. Sadly, it was expressed in merely a milder form of HYUFD’s now fully-frothing nationalism.
HYUFD is bonkers, no offence. If the Scots want to be independent we should respect that.
However all the Remainers who are happy to have fascists in Spain set our laws are hypocrites.
Silly question but how do we have fascists in Spain setting our laws?
When Spain did exactly what HYUFD proposes were they stripped of their EU Commissioner? Their MEPs? Their votes in the European Council?
What was done is disgusting and has no place in a free democracy.
You have absolutely no idea what was done. The Catalan government by-passed mandated Catalan Parliamentary rules to call a referendum. This was declared illegal by courts in Catalonia, which ordered the Catalan government not to proceed. The Catalan government refused to obey the court orders and went ahead anyway. The Catalan courts ordered the Catalan police to seize ballot boxes, but the Catalan police chief - who had been appointed by the separatist government and was himself a separatist - refused to cooperate, so the Guardia Civil was asked to do it instead. There is no democracy anywhere that allows politicians to pick and choose the laws they follow. They have to obey them all. That applies in Spain as much as it does in the UK.
So you side with HYUFD in backing what was done in Spain and thinking it would be acceptable here?
Nope, I was merely explaining that his interpretation of what happened in Catalonia is entirely wrong. My view is that the Spanish authorities were largely to blame for the development of separatism in Catalonia and that their confrontational response to it was disastrous. It should never have got to the stage it did. Now that PP is out of power and PSOE is taking a much more conciliatory approach support for independence has fallen, as has the approval rating of the Catalan government. I set out my views a while back on PB:
May tried to get a deal. It failed due to a combination of her own incompetence, and because the majority of pro-EU MPs voted against it.
Mr. Walker, remaining in also means ignoring 'two of the four nations'. Foreign policy can't be devolved and a Welshman's vote shouldn't mean less than a Scotsman's. I do have some sympathy with the irked, though. The whole thing has been handled poorly, by both PMs and MPs.
As for democracy, the electorate voted, and MPs have buggered things. Even now they need to actually decide what they want, besides wailing and gnashing of teeth.
With respect, I think you are not accounting for the reality that the U.K. is now a quasi federal state. Scottish and Northern Irish politics operate in almost entirely different spheres to Westminster, and Wales is not far behind.
You may regret that (you seem to be rather passionate about the unitary state as an ideal form) but this has been the case since the late 90s and ever more so in the 2010s.
In federal states it is normal for constituent states to hold veto powers for important constitutional matters.
Leaving the EU is clearly such a matter. The EU is not just about “foreign policy”. As we see, leaving the EU has implications across every dimension of the constitution, especially with respect to Northern Ireland.
You - an Englishman - can choose to override the wishes of people in the nations of course, but you must be prepared to pay the price.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
That would be fantastic. Westminster would be (rightly) destroyed in the ensuing civil disorder.
It is what Spain did in Catalonia and Madrid and the Cortez are still standing
The Spanish police were acting on the orders of Spanish courts, not the government. The Scots have a separate legal system and so you have to envisage a situation under which Scottish courts order the Scottish police to prevent an independence referendum in Scotland because the Scottish government has called it illegally.
That would be a surreal moment.
But it isn't impossible, given that Westminster would have to pass legislation before such a referendum could be held.
Absolutely. But there is no constitutional reason for Westminster not to allow such a referendum. That makes the UK unlike most other countries, where the unity of the state is written into the constitution. This does not just apply to Spain, but to almost anywhere else. Look at the obstacles in the way of a state seceding in the US, for example.
Could take it to the Supreme Court, Union is a treaty and any party can always leave a treaty. Just because Westminster made up some guff about it does not make it real.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
No, I identify as British too, with a similar mix of ethnicities, also via the imperal diaspora.
May tried to get a deal. It failed due to a combination of her own incompetence, and because the majority of pro-EU MPs voted against it.
Mr. Walker, remaining in also means ignoring 'two of the four nations'. Foreign policy can't be devolved and a Welshman's vote shouldn't mean less than a Scotsman's. I do have some sympathy with the irked, though. The whole thing has been handled poorly, by both PMs and MPs.
As for democracy, the electorate voted, and MPs have buggered things. Even now they need to actually decide what they want, besides wailing and gnashing of teeth.
With respect, I think you are not accounting for the reality that the U.K. is now a quasi federal state. Scottish and Northern Irish politics operate in almost entirely different spheres to Westminster, and Wales is not far behind.
You may regret that (you seem to be rather passionate about the unitary state as an ideal form) but this has been the case since the late 90s and ever more so in the 2010s.
In federal states it is normal for constituent states to hold veto powers for important constitutional matters.
Leaving the EU is clearly such a matter. The EU is not just about “foreign policy”. As we see, leaving the EU has implications across every dimension of the constitution, especially with respect to Northern Ireland.
You - an Englishman - can choose to override the wishes of people in the nations of course, but you must be prepared to pay the price.
Some of us don't view it as a 'price'.
The question for you is whether you accept that Brexit increases the chances that the U.K. in its current form will dissolve.
You may welcome it, of course, but do you accept the causation?
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
No, I identify as British too, with a similar mix of ethnicities, also via the imperal diaspora.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
That would be fantastic. Westminster would be (rightly) destroyed in the ensuing civil disorder.
It is what Spain did in Catalonia and Madrid and the Cortez are still standing
Err, that really doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to sent the police in to stop political activity.
The best argument against Scottish independence is for the U.K. to make a success of leaving the EU, that’s where all the energies need to be put for the next few years.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
Given that was your view the day after the referendum and was based on our own bias rather than any actual facts, I would suggest you are not best placed to make such judgements.
What and you think that the way the government has handled it to date should give everyone confidence that the whole thing will be a fantastic success?
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
You are suggesting that we should model our response to Scottish Nationalists on the behaviour of a brutal dictatorship?
Have you gone completely insane?
No but we could follow the model of the former Popular Party Government in Spain dealing with Nationalists in Catalonia, the Popular Party being the Tories sister party
I would hope that under those circumstance, whatever vestigial support the Tory party had left would evaporate entirely and they would be consigned to the rubbish heap of history for good. Any party following the example of the PP in Spain deserves to be utterly destroyed.
I doubt it would the Tory Party and most Leavers (bar a few libertarians like you) ideally want Brexit and the Union
Can you hear yourself? This is not about Libertarianism or the Union or any of that stuff. It is about proposing that the Government use force to deny people their right to vote. It is not just something a Libertarian or a an anarchist should decry, it is something that every right minded person in the country, both North and South of the border should utterly condemn.
And was heavily condemned by lots of us here on PB as I recall.
A more pertinent question really is, if Ashcroft's figures are correct - which, let us not forget, they usually are not - whether that makes another SNP majority more likely in 2021. Because that might trigger another referendum on independence.
At the same time, they will then have been in government for fourteen years and their domestic agenda is rapidly descending into chaos. So they will be left with few options to campaign on other than independence anyway.
There is already a majority for a referendum, more than 50% of parliament want one and had it in their manifesto.
Mr. Walker, but why should Scotland and Northern Ireland have vetoes over action, yet Wales and England not?
Unless you're arguing for a sort of status quo bias (I don't use that in a pejorative sense).
In any event, that would be diametrically opposed to the political class repeatedly signing us up for ever more integration (and thus change) without public consultation. When the default is for change when it's pro-EU, and status quo when it's pro-EU, such a system might not necessarily appear fair and balanced.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
HYFUD In recent days you have suggested we should all forego our foreign holidays and go to Pembrokeshire (state holiday camps?), a few days later you wanted to disenfranchise the regions, now you want to send troops into those regions. You also want to enforce the result of a democratic vote that was passed on a very small margin and was worded in the most broad terms without any verification process of what people may actually want even if it results in a zombie apocalypse. As they say 'no if no buts'.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
I'm neutral on the matter. I think Scotland is probably better off part of the UK - they have a decent amount of devolution anyway - but it's not for me to stop them going independent if that is what they want.
Yup me too. I am a conservative and having grown up with Scotland as part of the UK I like it and don't want it to change but if they feel extremely strongly about it and there is a majority to do so then good luck to them.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
It depends. I feel English in the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and British everywhere else - except in the US, where I feel European. In England itself I am a Londoner. And in London I am from NW5.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
That would be fantastic. Westminster would be (rightly) destroyed in the ensuing civil disorder.
It is what Spain did in Catalonia and Madrid and the Cortez are still standing
Err, that really doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to sent the police in to stop political activity.
The best argument against Scottish independence is for the U.K. to make a success of leaving the EU, that’s where all the energies need to be put for the next few years.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
Given that was your view the day after the referendum and was based on our own bias rather than any actual facts, I would suggest you are not best placed to make such judgements.
Do tell me, what's the positive Leave agenda?
All I see is negative agreement built around visceral and emotional hatred of the EU. There's an abstract interest in trade deals that dissolves into fainting horror the moment the concrete realities of doing a deal with any given country are identified.
So Brexit is destined to fail as in due course Leavers will turn on each other, each viciously attacking the others for undermining the true Brexit vision.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
I am in a similar boat - born in Scotland to English parents with a mix of English, Irish, Welsh and probably Scottish ancestry, lived in England for much of my adult life. I always thought of myself as British, Scottish and European, more or less in that order. Since the English now wish to take that third identity away from me against my will, I have realised that "British" is no longer an identity in which I can believe while retaining my self respect. So Scottish, and hopefully somehow still European it is. I am the most reluctant of Scottish nationalists, driven to it by English nationalists.
..............nt and more recently those who have settled from other EU countries. "England" means nothing to them but they are British and for all Arlene Foster's ravings about cricket and for all the romanticised nostalgia about Britishness as a subset of suburban England, there is a new Britain out there - come to East Ham if you want to see it. New Britain embraces capitalism but it listens to bhangra and hip-hop and enjoys proper Asian food. It's brash at times but it's a rapidly developing culture and isn't rooted in the past and has no sentimental attachment to Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Yes, on 3 many of the SDP were utterly clueless about the reality of third party politics and seemed to imagine that waving the flag and a national swing would see them home in seats up and down the country. Topping the polls before the Falklands war hit did nothing to disillusion them, and the rude awakening had to wait for the 1983 election.
You can see a reflection of that in the attitude of some of the TIGs, who seemed to think their existing reputation would be enough to carry them through without doing any serious thinking or work about the launch of their new party.
People who are used to getting elected on the back of party swing rather than from the hard graft it takes to beat the system as a third party candidate often find the required transition of mindset very difficult.
Brexit party seem to be the same (planes, buses....). Admittedly B&R may have been a challenge, but they could have done a proper campaign in Peterborough. They claimed not to have the data, but they had the troops to do it and it is difficult to believe that they don't have anyone who knows how to run a by election. Why didn't they.
Although I still remember the odd LD telling you 'people are now getting fedup with all the leaflets'. Yep, now give them another one.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
MD , it is not clear given no written constitution, as with any treaty a party can sign up or revoke. Also has always been agreed that if a majority of Scots want it then it should happen. Only when you have crooks and charlatans running Westminster do you get issues. For sure it is coming.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
Mr. Walker, but why should Scotland and Northern Ireland have vetoes over action, yet Wales and England not?
Unless you're arguing for a sort of status quo bias (I don't use that in a pejorative sense).
In any event, that would be diametrically opposed to the political class repeatedly signing us up for ever more integration (and thus change) without public consultation. When the default is for change when it's pro-EU, and status quo when it's pro-EU, such a system might not necessarily appear fair and balanced.
I don’t really accept that a political class signed up for ever more integration (although I favoured a referendum to support Maastricht).
But putting that aside, I am simply saying that if you want to dramatically change the UK, all four nations need to consent. Indeed, expressed as I just have, it is a truism.
I think a EU Brexit referendum ought to have needed majorities in all four nations, yes. And one didn’t need an English Parliament to make that happen. It is too late now.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Although I would agree with such a decision, you have previously suggested that in response Sturgeon woul declare UDI!
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
May tried to get a deal. It failed due to a combination of her own incompetence, and because the majority of pro-EU MPs voted against it.
Mr. Walker, remaining in also means ignoring 'two of the four nations'. Foreign policy can't be devolved and a Welshman's vote shouldn't mean less than a Scotsman's. I do have some sympathy with the irked, though. The whole thing has been handled poorly, by both PMs and MPs.
As for democracy, the electorate voted, and MPs have buggered things. Even now they need to actually decide what they want, besides wailing and gnashing of teeth.
With respect, I think you are not accounting for the reality that the U.K. is now a quasi federal state. Scottish and Northern Irish politics operate in almost entirely different spheres to Westminster, and Wales is not far behind.
You may regret that (you seem to be rather passionate about the unitary state as an ideal form) but this has been the case since the late 90s and ever more so in the 2010s.
In federal states it is normal for constituent states to hold veto powers for important constitutional matters.
Leaving the EU is clearly such a matter. The EU is not just about “foreign policy”. As we see, leaving the EU has implications across every dimension of the constitution, especially with respect to Northern Ireland.
You - an Englishman - can choose to override the wishes of people in the nations of course, but you must be prepared to pay the price.
Some of us don't view it as a 'price'.
The question for you is whether you accept that Brexit increases the chances that the U.K. in its current form will dissolve.
You may welcome it, of course, but do you accept the causation?
Absolutely. But as I say I see that as a benefit rather than a cost. The same applies to a united Ireland.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
You’re not unique at all.
I was born and brought up in England, but 3/4 Scottish Catholic by parentage, and now live overseas.
Definitely identify as British rather than English, although tend to support England at sports.
My preference would be for a more federal U.K. with more powers devolved to the four constituent parts, and from there down to county and city level where possible.
That does make me wonder somewhat what the point of going right into Birmingham is rather than just running to Solihull [EDIT], but I suppose there will be trains that stop and Birmingham and trains that stop at Solihull, rather than both.
You are right to wonder. The connectivity of the West Midlands rail network is in the main centred around the interchange at Birmingham New Street, including both the direct WCML and the myriad of local rail lines which connect to it. HS2 at Curzon Street will be over half a mile's trek across town from New Street. For West Midlands residents it will in almost all cases continue to be quicker and involve considerably less hassle to go to London as now using the WCML directly from New Street (or Wolvehampton or Sandwell and Dudley) to Euston. Those who live in the South East of Birmingham and others who want to avoid the already considerable expense of Virgin Trains (let alone the expense of using HS2) will continue to be attracted by the alternative of the Chiltern Line to Marylebone.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
That would be fantastic. Westminster would be (rightly) destroyed in the ensuing civil disorder.
It is what Spain did in Catalonia and Madrid and the Cortez are still standing
Err, that really doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to sent the police in to stop political activity.
The best argument against Scottish independence is for the U.K. to make a success of leaving the EU, that’s where all the energies need to be put for the next few years.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
Given that was your view the day after the referendum and was based on our own bias rather than any actual facts, I would suggest you are not best placed to make such judgements.
Do tell me, what's the positive Leave agenda?
All I see is negative agreement built around visceral and emotional hatred of the EU. There's an abstract interest in trade deals that dissolves into fainting horror the moment the concrete realities of doing a deal with any given country are identified.
So Brexit is destined to fail as in due course Leavers will turn on each other, each viciously attacking the others for undermining the true Brexit vision.
Keep taking the pills Alastair. You appear even more deluded and ranting than usual today.
Mr. Walker, but why should Scotland and Northern Ireland have vetoes over action, yet Wales and England not?
Unless you're arguing for a sort of status quo bias (I don't use that in a pejorative sense).
In any event, that would be diametrically opposed to the political class repeatedly signing us up for ever more integration (and thus change) without public consultation. When the default is for change when it's pro-EU, and status quo when it's pro-EU, such a system might not necessarily appear fair and balanced.
I don’t really accept that a political class signed up for ever more integration (although I favoured a referendum to support Maastricht).
But putting that aside, I am simply saying that if you want to dramatically change the UK, all four nations need to consent. Indeed, expressed as I just have, it is a truism.
I think a EU Brexit referendum ought to have needed majorities in all four nations, yes. And one didn’t need an English Parliament to make that happen. It is too late now.
That would have been a reasonable requirement so long as all 4 nations had been required to approve by referenda Lisbon, Nice, Maastricht etc. What is sauce for the goose is good for the gander.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
That would be fantastic. Westminster would be (rightly) destroyed in the ensuing civil disorder.
It is what Spain did in Catalonia and Madrid and the Cortez are still standing
Err, that really doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to sent the police in to stop political activity.
The best argument against Scottish independence is for the U.K. to make a success of leaving the EU, that’s where all the energies need to be put for the next few years.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
Given that was your view the day after the referendum and was based on our own bias rather than any actual facts, I would suggest you are not best placed to make such judgements.
Do tell me, what's the positive Leave agenda?
All I see is negative agreement built around visceral and emotional hatred of the EU. There's an abstract interest in trade deals that dissolves into fainting horror the moment the concrete realities of doing a deal with any given country are identified.
So Brexit is destined to fail as in due course Leavers will turn on each other, each viciously attacking the others for undermining the true Brexit vision.
Keep taking the pills Alastair. You appear even more deluded and ranting than usual today.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
Probably count all the roads on two hands, A1, A7 and M74 is about it apart from a handful of minor roads and a few farm tracks.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
And English MPs could change that whenever they wanted.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
No, I identify as British too, with a similar mix of ethnicities, also via the imperal diaspora.
So far as I can ascertain (I haven't done one of those tests...... yet) most of my ancestors on all sides appear to have been here since before the Romans came, but I identify as British.
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
The Tory Party seems to be working on the assumption that with the Union ended and Ireland reunited, their only route to a Parliamentary majority is to court the Little England vote.
Tragic
This all began with Cameron's reaction to the Scottish referendum result in 2014. He could have been magnanimous, instead he chose English nationalism. He was a very poor Prime Minister.
What did he do in reaction to the Scottish referendum result in 2014 that you object to?
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
It depends. I feel English in the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and British everywhere else - except in the US, where I feel European. In England itself I am a Londoner. And in London I am from NW5.
There's another dimension - how far national identity matters to people. I suppose I identify as British if pressed, but if I was told that henceforth I'd be classed as Scottish (1/8 true) or European or whatever, that'd be OK too. It tends to vary over time - if we're at war, national identity becomes crucial; if there's a long period of amity with neighbours and no feeling that one's own group are being unfairly treated, it doesn't matter so much.
Where it gets awkward is if we actually think the neighbours are right and we're wrong (which is pretty much my view of Brexit).
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
I pretty much predicted that Yes would get a polling lead following Boris becoming PM, but I think it's somewhat premature for people to declare the end of the Union is nigh. Yes seems to get polling leads whenever something bad happens to the left of centre, whether it be Milliband's defeat or the initial EU referendum. Thing is within a month or two No starts polling above Yes again, when the initial shock/anger wears off. It might be that if no deal happens and is bad as some of us fear, Yes could maintain consistent polling leads, but that remains to be seen yet.
It might provide Labour with a useful election slogan - 'Get rid of Boris to Save the Union!'
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
My ancestors are all Irish and from both sides of the border, but due to where I grew up I identified as British and vaguley European. Until Brexit happened I did not realise how much I valued the "European" element of my identity but being a dual national I have since realised that unless the Irish pack the EU in then I still retain that part of my identity. However the arrogance and stupidity of the leading Brexiteers mean that I would rather identity as Irish these days.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
I think this is indeed the case and with the current govt it feels like the start of the slide back to days of Imperial arrogance which seems to be Boris's dog-whistle. As for our current Home Secretary... words fail me
There's no point putting energies into a futile effort. Leavers have already shown themselves to be utterly clueless about even what they are aiming to achieve. So the UK is not going to make a success of leaving the EU. Better to start thinking what the consequences of that failure are going to be.
The Tory Party seems to be working on the assumption that with the Union ended and Ireland reunited, their only route to a Parliamentary majority is to court the Little England vote.
Tragic
This all began with Cameron's reaction to the Scottish referendum result in 2014. He could have been magnanimous, instead he chose English nationalism. He was a very poor Prime Minister.
What did he do in reaction to the Scottish referendum result in 2014 that you object to?
I thin k it would be the acting like 45%-55% was a crushing victory.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
What about this great IT solution and paperwork done elsewhere, why would every lorry need to be searched at this border only. Reality is they would pull over 1 in a thousand if lucky.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
You’re not unique at all.
I was born and brought up in England, but 3/4 Scottish Catholic by parentage, and now live overseas.
Definitely identify as British rather than English, although tend to support England at sports.
My preference would be for a more federal U.K. with more powers devolved to the four constituent parts, and from there down to county and city level where possible.
Realistically, no one knows their exact ancestral heritage much more than a few generations past and even then there can always be a cuckoo in the nest. There was a genealogist on the radio yesterday saying that the results from the current trend of paying to send a sample off to a lab and then being told you've got Viking/Scottish/Polynesian ancestors should be taken with a pinch of salt. For me, you put down roots, become part of a community and pretty much decide what you want to be. I'm Lesta/English. I'm happy with whatever you want to call yourself.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Just a question. Would it be easier or harder to disentangle Scotland from the UK than the UK from the EU? As I say, just a question.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Ultimately if the Scots wish to secede, a way will be found.
But countries don’t have independence referendums every five minutes, for very good reason.
On Scottish independence: well I suppose that if we're going to have a no-deal crashout, which would lead to a big economic hit in all of the UK and utter disruption north and south of the Irish border, probably followed by a far-left government trashing things even further, then it would only be fair to let the Scots go for their own home-grown economic disaster as well.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
Indeed.
Are customs duties are being placed on English weddings there ?
On Scottish independence: well I suppose that if we're going to have a no-deal crashout, which would lead to a big economic hit in all of the UK and utter disruption north and south of the Irish border, probably followed by a far-left government trashing things even further, then it would only be fair to let the Scots go for their own home-grown economic disaster as well.
If we're going to feck things up we may as well do a proper job of it.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
And English MPs could change that whenever they wanted.
Not just with a majority of English MPs they couldn't, no.
Until Brexit happened I did not realise how much I valued the "European" element of my identity but being a dual national I have since realised that unless the Irish pack the EU in then I still retain that part of my identity. However the arrogance and stupidity of the leading Brexiteers mean that I would rather identity as Irish these days.
Same here (but replace Ireland with France). Before Brexit, if anything I would hide my French heritage. Now I've gone so far the other way I'm learning French (something I *never* thought I'd do) and seriously considering one day moving there.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
Probably count all the roads on two hands, A1, A7 and M74 is about it apart from a handful of minor roads and a few farm tracks.
A68 - although that probably doesn't have too many heavy lorries on it!
I thin k it would be the acting like 45%-55% was a crushing victory.
Nonsense. He said it was a decisive result, exactly as the SNP would have done if it had been 55%-45%. His response was, as you would expect, entirely respectful and unifying:
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
What about this great IT solution and paperwork done elsewhere, why would every lorry need to be searched at this border only. Reality is they would pull over 1 in a thousand if lucky.
If there were an IT solution, there would be no Irish backstop in the WA, we'd be out of the EU, TM would still be PM and the world (well, the UK) would generally be a much better and less divided and bitter place.
ESPNcricinfo have started the day with all 3 results hinted at
7.3 0 Cummins to Burns, no run, outside off, a touch wider of the stumps. Calmly left alone with no concerns whatsoever. It's a bore-draw in prospect! Draw ! 7.2 0 Cummins to Burns, no run, lively riposte! Quicker, tighter to the stumps, zinging past a defensive prod, oh so close to the edge. Sound the retreat! Lose ! 7.1 4 Cummins to Burns, FOUR runs, a half-tracker outside off, Burns leans on a defensive push, and that's scorched through the covers! Sound the bugle, this is on! Win !
One argument for the Union is that it allows for these multi-national identities. At its best, the U.K. is an anti-nationalist endeavour (hence our traditional cringe against overt flag-waving etc).
To be British carries no ethnic imperative (so far as I can tell). Those who have left the Commonwealth to make their home here are surely more British than, say, English.
In a globalising world, that seems like a precious inheritance.
ESPNcricinfo have started the day with all 3 results hinted at
7.3 0 Cummins to Burns, no run, outside off, a touch wider of the stumps. Calmly left alone with no concerns whatsoever. It's a bore-draw in prospect! Draw ! 7.2 0 Cummins to Burns, no run, lively riposte! Quicker, tighter to the stumps, zinging past a defensive prod, oh so close to the edge. Sound the retreat! Lose ! 7.1 4 Cummins to Burns, FOUR runs, a half-tracker outside off, Burns leans on a defensive push, and that's scorched through the covers! Sound the bugle, this is on! Win !
What odds on the fourth possible result - the tie?
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
We have two countries with nuclear weapons, who have previously gone to war over this territory, with one country supporting armed militants in the disputed territory, with said militants being more than willing to use terrorism - both within the territory and elsewhere - to advance their cause.
And now India does the equivalent of throwing a match on the fire.
Comments
Does any of this remind you of anything?
Given politicians have dragged us closer and closer to the EU without recourse to the electorate it would not necessarily engender faith in politics to have them then throw up more barriers to departure, allowing a minority to overrule a majority (although such a requirement would at least have had some force had it been suggested pre-vote).
Plaid Cymru currently top Assembly polling.
Just as Northern Irish politics “de-unionised” in the 2000s with the rise of DUP/Sinn Féin and the decline of UUP/SDLP, and Scotland did in the 2010s with the collapse of Scottish Labour, it is entirely feasible for Wales to follow in the 2020s.
Once local politics is unaffiliated to national parties and dominated by nationalists, independence is on the horizon.
Four thoughts on this Monday morning so far:
1) The FTSE100 is taking another fall owing to "trade war" concerns yet those in favour of us leaving without a Deal seem to think in this increasingly protectionist atmosphere FTAs are going to be strewn around like confetti. It's quite clear for all his rhetoric Trump won't agree an FTA with the UK which isn't anything other than wholly favourable to the US (why would he? He's not an Anglophile, he's an American nationalist).
2) It's curious that those who lecture on respecting the result of the 23/6/16 referendum (because it suits them now) are openly talking about shutting down the result of the 11/9/97 referendum which they opposed but which until now they have respected. Is the new intolerant Conservatism going to abolish the office of Mayor of London because it doesn't like the office holder?
3) On topic - I acted as an Agent to an SDP candidate in 1987. They had plenty of money to spend in a seat they couldn't possibly win and while there were resources to knock on doors, get members and deliverers and build up a local base, some of the SDP preferred glossy literature and open top buses which are fine to a point but it wasn't the kind of electioneering I found effective.
4) When discussing the Union, I think we are missing a key and growing component - "the British". These are the sons, daughters and indeed grandchildren of immigrants not just from Windrush but from the Indian Subcontinent and more recently those who have settled from other EU countries. "England" means nothing to them but they are British and for all Arlene Foster's ravings about cricket and for all the romanticised nostalgia about Britishness as a subset of suburban England, there is a new Britain out there - come to East Ham if you want to see it. New Britain embraces capitalism but it listens to bhangra and hip-hop and enjoys proper Asian food. It's brash at times but it's a rapidly developing culture and isn't rooted in the past and has no sentimental attachment to Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
I wonder if that's also another aspect of the rural/urban contrast in politics/demographics.
Still wasn't nearly far enough.
You can see a reflection of that in the attitude of some of the TIGs, who seemed to think their existing reputation would be enough to carry them through without doing any serious thinking or work about the launch of their new party.
People who are used to getting elected on the back of party swing rather than from the hard graft it takes to beat the system as a third party candidate often find the required transition of mindset very difficult.
The challenge is what to do next (I don’t think an English Parliament helps) but I think you are mistaken that simply riding roughshod over Scotland and Northern Ireland in the name of “the will of the people” is something folks are going to just suck up.
Ultimately, democracy relies on consent.
There is insufficient consent across the country, and with particular groups, for Brexit to be successful.
But given the dynamics of this Parliament I see no alternative plan. Pussyfooting around won't get a majority as May found so what does Boris have to lose?
Go hell for leather for glory or an election. If anyone blinks you win and get glory. If nobody does you get your election on the strongest possible footing.
Better than becoming bogged down in quicksand.
Sadly, transporting him to Australia wasn’t an option any more.
Which reminds me - cricket match to watch and bet on.
Rather, by ancestry and inclination, I identify as “British”. I am less than 50% English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Welsh, with a bit of Irish in there too.
The break up of the Union would be very upsetting for me. Most on this board seem to be rather sanguine about it, perhaps because they are “English” rather than “British”.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/06/spains-government-largely-created-the-catalan-crisis-and-may-not-be-able-to-end-it/
You may welcome it, of course, but do you accept the causation?
Unless you're arguing for a sort of status quo bias (I don't use that in a pejorative sense).
In any event, that would be diametrically opposed to the political class repeatedly signing us up for ever more integration (and thus change) without public consultation. When the default is for change when it's pro-EU, and status quo when it's pro-EU, such a system might not necessarily appear fair and balanced.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
All I see is negative agreement built around visceral and emotional hatred of the EU. There's an abstract interest in trade deals that dissolves into fainting horror the moment the concrete realities of doing a deal with any given country are identified.
So Brexit is destined to fail as in due course Leavers will turn on each other, each viciously attacking the others for undermining the true Brexit vision.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Although I still remember the odd LD telling you 'people are now getting fedup with all the leaflets'. Yep, now give them another one.
But putting that aside, I am simply saying that if you want to dramatically change the UK, all four nations need to consent. Indeed, expressed as I just have, it is a truism.
I think a EU Brexit referendum ought to have needed majorities in all four nations, yes. And one didn’t need an English Parliament to make that happen. It is too late now.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
I was born and brought up in England, but 3/4 Scottish Catholic by parentage, and now live overseas.
Definitely identify as British rather than English, although tend to support England at sports.
My preference would be for a more federal U.K. with more powers devolved to the four constituent parts, and from there down to county and city level where possible.
Where it gets awkward is if we actually think the neighbours are right and we're wrong (which is pretty much my view of Brexit).
For me, you put down roots, become part of a community and pretty much decide what you want to be. I'm Lesta/English. I'm happy with whatever you want to call yourself.
But countries don’t have independence referendums every five minutes, for very good reason.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29271765
As there isn't one...
7.3
0
Cummins to Burns, no run, outside off, a touch wider of the stumps. Calmly left alone with no concerns whatsoever. It's a bore-draw in prospect! Draw !
7.2
0
Cummins to Burns, no run, lively riposte! Quicker, tighter to the stumps, zinging past a defensive prod, oh so close to the edge. Sound the retreat! Lose !
7.1
4
Cummins to Burns, FOUR runs, a half-tracker outside off, Burns leans on a defensive push, and that's scorched through the covers! Sound the bugle, this is on! Win !
One argument for the Union is that it allows for these multi-national identities. At its best, the U.K. is an anti-nationalist endeavour (hence our traditional cringe against overt flag-waving etc).
To be British carries no ethnic imperative (so far as I can tell). Those who have left the Commonwealth to make their home here are surely more British than, say, English.
In a globalising world, that seems like a precious inheritance.
And they have a fully fit attack.
We have two countries with nuclear weapons, who have previously gone to war over this territory, with one country supporting armed militants in the disputed territory, with said militants being more than willing to use terrorism - both within the territory and elsewhere - to advance their cause.
And now India does the equivalent of throwing a match on the fire.
Who is advising them? Rajoy?