38% of Scots voted to Leave the EU, more even the 28% who voted Tory in 2017. Not one poll has the SNP polling over 50%, the biggest gainers since 2017 in Scotland have been the LDs and the Brexit Party NOT the SNP
An hour ago you told me that it was untrue that the front pages in Scotland a dream for the SNP. I await your apology expectantly. Or have you now given up on any kind of pretence that the truth matters?
They aren't, as I said the Daily Record is a pro Labour, anti Tory paper and prefers the SNP to the Tories and all the Scottish only papers are pro Remain despite 38% of Scots voting Leave
In what way are these headlines not a dream for the SNP? They are a direct assault on the idea of the union, illustrated by the poster child of unionism.
They are a direct assault on the union by diehard Remainers who dream of breaking up the Union as punishment for the Leave vote, what is new?
Yet still the SNP is polling below the 50% it got in 2015 BEFORE the Brexit vote
Funny how when it comes to Brexit HY always adds Brexit Party and UKIP to the Con vote, but when it comes to Scottish sovereignty, HY pretends that the SNP stand alone. We don’t. We have the Greens, various small left-wing groups, 40% of SLab voters and a small, but significant, number of SCon and SLD voters behind us.
Remember, support for independence was at 28% before the last referendum, and ended up at 45%. So, we are quite happy to be going into the next referendum starting at 50%.
The idea that Scotland is going to vote for independence after the shitshow of the last three years (which the breakup of the UK would make look like a cakewalk) is for the birds.
Ha ! Project fear...
While you have a point, that quite reasonable argument failed to prevent the Brexit vote - and if we no deal, the prospect of rejoining the EU as an independent nation might look rather attractive to Scotland.
It might, and the 45% will be very pumped up, but what's in it for Unionist floating voters? Years of mud wrestling and uncertainty?
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
How does Boris go to the country if he's no longer PM ?
Yes sorry I thought about that and misexpressed myself.
Harman appointed somehow - she'll be PM solely to extend A50, Corbyn will want a GE immediately after I suspect. Obviously the former Gov't will have no confidence in her either. So with both front benches there'll be the votes to create a GE in short order.
The "somehow" is the tricky part. A GONU PM would have to enjoy the confidence of the HoC before any attempt to extend Article 50.
The single factor to note in this whole issue is Boris's ambition to remain Prime Minister. All other matters are secondary to it. So it's :
1. We leave on October 31st and Boris calls a general election. 2. We fail to leave by October 31st and Boris calls a general election
You see the common factor ?? ....
Asks corbyn if he will help him call an election don’t you mean?
38% of Scots voted to Leave the EU, more even the 28% who voted Tory in 2017. Not one poll has the SNP polling over 50%, the biggest gainers since 2017 in Scotland have been the LDs and the Brexit Party NOT the SNP
An hour ago you told me that it was untrue that the front pages in Scotland a dream for the SNP. I await your apology expectantly. Or have you now given up on any kind of pretence that the truth matters?
They aren't, as I said the Daily Record is a pro Labour, anti Tory paper and prefers the SNP to the Tories and all the Scottish only papers are pro Remain despite 38% of Scots voting Leave
In what way are these headlines not a dream for the SNP? They are a direct assault on the idea of the union, illustrated by the poster child of unionism.
They are a direct assault on the union by diehard Remainers who dream of breaking up the Union as punishment for the Leave vote, what is new?
Yet still the SNP is polling below the 50% it got in 2015 BEFORE the Brexit vote
Funny how when it comes to Brexit HY always adds Brexit Party and UKIP to the Con vote, but when it comes to Scottish sovereignty, HY pretends that the SNP stand alone. We don’t. We have the Greens, various small left-wing groups, 40% of SLab voters and a small, but significant, number of SCon and SLD voters behind us.
Remember, support for independence was at 28% before the last referendum, and ended up at 45%. So, we are quite happy to be going into the next referendum starting at 50%.
The idea that Scotland is going to vote for independence after the shitshow of the last three years (which the breakup of the UK would make look like a cakewalk) is for the birds.
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
If we go down this path of using parliamentary procedure to avoid attempts to block legislation or otherwise hold the executive to account we are enabling all sorts of other evils in the future. Conservatives ought to be opposed to such tactics.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I am interested in what you think Big_G - and surprised in this instance - good on you!
It has been a long held view and is shared in my family.
Time for them to be sidelined but only after the queen has passed
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
Arguably a lot of the core of modern Britain is due to it's brief time as a Republic. I don't think at it's core Britain is anything, particularly. It is, like all countries, whatever mythos works at the time to get people to believe in the borders.
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Semantics. You're choosing a definition of the word "patriot" which excludes lots of people who feel strongly attached to the country but would like changes. You're entitled to do so, but don't expect the word to carry any resonance for the rest of us.
It's liker those tiresome debates about "what is a socialist" and "what is a Christian". They tend to confuse rather than illuminate. We are all complex beings and the natural thing is to resist being pigeonholed anyway.
I'm choosing the Webster's definition of the word "patriot".
The rest of your post comes over slightly holier-than-thou, Nick but many thanks for your contribution.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
His loyalty changes with every blow of the wind, and he's very easily influenced.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I’m surprised - all the loyalty you invested in silly old Theresa yet you’re happy to throw Liz to the wolves.
Not HMQ but yes after her demise. It has been a lifetime view
What if we skip Charles and go straight to William?
I have never understood people who argue that the monarchy should skip over Charles and go straight to William. People who want this are supporting the monarchy because,... King William..., but they are denying the fundamental principal of monarchism, which is that we do not get to choose who becomes King/Queen, it is predetermined by hereditry.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
Arguably a lot of the core of modern Britain is due to it's brief time as a Republic. I don't think at it's core Britain is anything, particularly. It is, like all countries, whatever mythos works at the time to get people to believe in the borders.
Albeit a republic in which the second head of state was the son of the first head of state.
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Semantics. You're choosing a definition of the word "patriot" which excludes lots of people who feel strongly attached to the country but would like changes. You're entitled to do so, but don't expect the word to carry any resonance for the rest of us.
It's liker those tiresome debates about "what is a socialist" and "what is a Christian". They tend to confuse rather than illuminate. We are all complex beings and the natural thing is to resist being pigeonholed anyway.
I'm choosing the Webster's definition of the word "patriot".
The rest of your post comes over slightly holier-than-thou, Nick but many thanks for your contribution.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I’m surprised - all the loyalty you invested in silly old Theresa yet you’re happy to throw Liz to the wolves.
Not HMQ but yes after her demise. It has been a lifetime view
What if we skip Charles and go straight to William?
I have never understood people who argue that the monarchy should skip over Charles and go straight to William. People who want this are supporting the monarchy because,... King William..., but they are denying the fundamental principal of monarchism, which is that we do not get to choose who becomes King/Queen, it is predetermined by hereditry.
Exactly.
Edit: I wasn't sure if @Xtrain was being sarcastic though.
He’s just doing his job, pointing out crap administration by the Home Office
Not everything needs to be an opportunity to try and score political points
It is not crap administration by the Home Office. They are following the instructions of the Home Secretary and the laws that the govt are making.
The govt refuse to legislate to protect the rights of EU citizens despite making promises to do so, as they are scared the legislation would be amended.
It is a political point, not administrative. Legislate and it could be sorted properly.
If the Home Office is telling someone their application was rejected because they "clicked the wrong button", then that does suggest the administration of the process isn't working especially well.
If there was legislation the applicants could take the Home Office to court if their rights were breached.
As the Tory MP Alberto Costa puts it himself:
“Boris Johnson personally pledged to me and to the country in the House of Commons that he would unequivocally guarantee the rights of citizens. Nothing is enshrined in primary legislation to guarantee these rights,” he said. “If we leave without a deal, many EU member states have said they will not protect the rights of British citizens until their citizens’ rights are enshrined in British law. And the obligation is on us.
Legally speaking, the whole settled status admin is unnecessary. If there is a law that EU citizens resident here on such-and-such a date are entitled to live and work here, then none of the paperwork is necessary. What makes it necessary is the purely practical problems of finding/keeping a job and a home if there is suspicion about your status. The govt could, and should, end this suspicion, by making it legal to give a job/home to anyone who is in the UK.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
Arguably a lot of the core of modern Britain is due to it's brief time as a Republic. I don't think at it's core Britain is anything, particularly. It is, like all countries, whatever mythos works at the time to get people to believe in the borders.
Yes I'm sure it is. And we have arrived at today's bit crazy situation.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
I repeat, I have been a republican all my life but the time to abolish it is on the demise of the queen
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
if Big G says he loves his country, who on earth are you to say that he doesn't because he disagrees with part of its constitutional arrangements? beyond ridiculous.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
I repeat, I have been a republican all my life but the time to abolish it is on the demise of the queen
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
Not just BoZo the Clown being a big feartie.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at goading.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
Listening to Humphrys interviewing Rees Mogg on radio 4 is like listening to a couple of aging pantomime dames on Desert Island Discs. How long will the BBC continue to waste the licence fee on this ridiculous old charlatan?
End the license fee. End the license fee.
Absolutely not. The BBC is the UK's greatest institution (now that Parliament is a busted flush). Just give it a little more money.
It's like so many things, living with the BBC is hard, living without it would be intolerable.
It sometimes gets a bit too set in its ways and its loyalty to some of its long servers doesn't do it any favours.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Edinburgh south is probably one of Labour's safest seats in the whole of the UK in reality this next election. No northern england potential Brexit party threat. Strongly unionist, remain, an MP some distance from Corbyn. No real Lib Dem threat (cf London, Bristol etc), Tories that will consider voting tactically Labour, no extant green threat.
It'll likely be very strong odds on Labour when the markets are formed, and rightly so.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
if Big G says he loves his country, who on earth are you to say that he doesn't because he disagrees with part of its constitutional arrangements? beyond ridiculous.
He doesn't love his country. He loves a country that this country is not. This country is a constitutional monarchy and he wants to abolish the monarchy which I agree is a pretty ridiculous position.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Edinburgh south is probably one of Labour's safest seats in the whole of the UK in reality this next election. No northern england potential Brexit party threat. Strongly unionist, remain, an MP some distance from Corbyn. No real Lib Dem threat (cf London, Bristol etc), Tories that will consider voting tactically Labour, no extant green threat.
It'll likely be very strong odds on Labour when the markets are formed, and rightly so.
It's very likely to be Labour's only seat in Scotland after the next election.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Both SNP gains imo. Tories will hold 2 maybe all 3 border seats and probably aberdeenshire west, maybe banff and Buchan and poss renfrewshire, lib dems should hold what they have, all close though except shetland and orkney, snp gains of the rest of the Tory seats, most of the labour seats if not all of them. I'm not stuart but that's my tuppence anyway
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
Not just BoZo the Clown being a big feartie.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at goading.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
I see screwing up Vanilla formatting is the new Brit Nat secret weapon.
We know a feartie when we see one: big on mouth, short on action.
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
Arguably a lot of the core of modern Britain is due to it's brief time as a Republic. I don't think at it's core Britain is anything, particularly. It is, like all countries, whatever mythos works at the time to get people to believe in the borders.
Albeit a republic in which the second head of state was the son of the first head of state.
It was a really bad Republic. But they tried. And it was based on some interesting ideas. It was just bad... The mirror actually had a really good article about it only the other day (in relation to Johnson).
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
if Big G says he loves his country, who on earth are you to say that he doesn't because he disagrees with part of its constitutional arrangements? beyond ridiculous.
He doesn't love his country. He loves a country that this country is not. This country is a constitutional monarchy and he wants to abolish the monarchy which I agree is a pretty ridiculous position.
Sorry, but you are not agreeing with me at all. I think Big G's his position is perfectly reasonable and that your position is ridiculous. You seem to think that the only thing that anybody can love about Britain is the fact that it is a constitutional monarchy, isn't that pretty absurd? Do you love Britain? and if so, do you equally love Spain, Japan and Luxembourg?
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
Not just BoZo the Clown being a big feartie.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at goading.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
I see screwing up Vanilla formatting is the new Brit Nat secret weapon.
We know a feartie when we see one: big on mouth, short on action.
Pathetic. But you're a great example of why your side will make precisely the same mistakes as last time: pompous arrogance.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
As was the fate of many a Continental monarchy...
The British monarchy has hitherto been good at changing in order to conserve.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Edinburgh south is probably one of Labour's safest seats in the whole of the UK in reality this next election. No northern england potential Brexit party threat. Strongly unionist, remain, an MP some distance from Corbyn. No real Lib Dem threat (cf London, Bristol etc), Tories that will consider voting tactically Labour, no extant green threat.
It'll likely be very strong odds on Labour when the markets are formed, and rightly so.
Thanks but I'm not so sure about Edinburgh. The perfect storm that made it one of the safest seats might not apply now. The Lib Dems could well be a real threat.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Shetland Bye-election poised to be the bellweather for everything from SNP 2021 performance, Brexit, Trump's re-election chances etc.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
Arguably a lot of the core of modern Britain is due to it's brief time as a Republic. I don't think at it's core Britain is anything, particularly. It is, like all countries, whatever mythos works at the time to get people to believe in the borders.
Albeit a republic in which the second head of state was the son of the first head of state.
It was a really bad Republic. But they tried. And it was based on some interesting ideas. It was just bad... The mirror actually had a really good article about it only the other day (in relation to Johnson).
It failed the dont slaughter the Irish and ban nice things like Christmas, dancing and theatre test. And of course dear Oliver prorogued parliament and ruled by decree.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Exactly how many people in Scotland care about the Shetland Islands?
In Shetland you see a lot of grafitti where a Scots-Thistle on a road sign has been crossed out.
Since when did thistles have a nationaity?
Can we expect the English rose to be stopped at Hadrian's wall when Scotland breaks away from the Union?
Thistles do not have a nationality, but it is a very widely used symbol for Scotland (look at a 5 pence coin).
I am not supporting defiling road signs just pointing out the recprocity in the sentence "Exactly how many people in Scotland care about the Shetland Islands"
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
if Big G says he loves his country, who on earth are you to say that he doesn't because he disagrees with part of its constitutional arrangements? beyond ridiculous.
He doesn't love his country. He loves a country that this country is not. This country is a constitutional monarchy and he wants to abolish the monarchy which I agree is a pretty ridiculous position.
Sorry, but you are not agreeing with me at all. I think Big G's his position is perfectly reasonable and that your position is ridiculous. You seem to think that the only thing that anybody can love about Britain is the fact that it is a constitutional monarchy, isn't that pretty absurd? Do you love Britain? and if so, do you equally love Spain, Japan and Luxembourg?
Yeah that's right I'm not agreeing with you. It was a rhetorical device.
You are also not understanding my point which I think I have explained quite enough today what with the ongoing Shetland situation so I will just leave it there for you to ponder and agree with. Or not.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
Maybe but I don't think it's really featuring as a major news story of everyday conversation.
Most people simply don't care that much about Andrew.
38% of Scots voted to Leave the EU, more even the 28% who voted Tory in 2017. Not one poll has the SNP polling over 50%, the biggest gainers since 2017 in Scotland have been the LDs and the Brexit Party NOT the SNP
An hour ago you told me that it was untrue that the front pages in Scotland a dream for the SNP. I await your apology expectantly. Or have you now given up on any kind of pretence that the truth matters?
They aren't, as I said the Daily Record is a pro Labour, anti Tory paper and prefers the SNP to the Tories and all the Scottish only papers are pro Remain despite 38% of Scots voting Leave
In what way are these headlines not a dream for the SNP? They are a direct assault on the idea of the union, illustrated by the poster child of unionism.
They are a direct assault on the union by diehard Remainers who dream of breaking up the Union as punishment for the Leave vote, what is new?
Yet still the SNP is polling below the 50% it got in 2015 BEFORE the Brexit vote
Funny how when it comes to Brexit HY always adds Brexit Party and UKIP to the Con vote, but when it comes to Scottish sovereignty, HY pretends that the SNP stand alone. We don’t. We have the Greens, various small left-wing groups, 40% of SLab voters and a small, but significant, number of SCon and SLD voters behind us.
Remember, support for independence was at 28% before the last referendum, and ended up at 45%. So, we are quite happy to be going into the next referendum starting at 50%.
The idea that Scotland is going to vote for independence after the shitshow of the last three years (which the breakup of the UK would make look like a cakewalk) is for the birds.
Ha ! Project fear...
While you have a point, that quite reasonable argument failed to prevent the Brexit vote - and if we no deal, the prospect of rejoining the EU as an independent nation might look rather attractive to Scotland.
It might, and the 45% will be very pumped up, but what's in it for Unionist floating voters? Years of mud wrestling and uncertainty?
I think everyone will have had enough.
They will be mud wrestling for longer with Brexit and the desire to get trade deals etc so what would you choose, uncertainty with a banana republic dictatorship or an easy rejoining of the EU.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Edinburgh south is probably one of Labour's safest seats in the whole of the UK in reality this next election. No northern england potential Brexit party threat. Strongly unionist, remain, an MP some distance from Corbyn. No real Lib Dem threat (cf London, Bristol etc), Tories that will consider voting tactically Labour, no extant green threat.
It'll likely be very strong odds on Labour when the markets are formed, and rightly so.
Thanks but I'm not so sure about Edinburgh. The perfect storm that made it one of the safest seats might not apply now. The Lib Dems could well be a real threat.
Aberdeen South - At even money I'd take the SNP. I doubt Evens will be offered on the SNP here.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
Hes already making noises that indicate he would cooperate with investigations, meaning hes potentially trying to buy his way out by dropping others in it. Epsteins NY mansion had naked pictures of young women all over it, that painting of Bill Clinton in the blue dress and had very young women coming and going all day. Andrew spent time there, his claim to know nothing of Epsteins wrongdoing holds no water at all. This will blow up and consume many, I see Woody Allen the filthy perv has his name associated amongst others
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
Maybe but I don't think it's really featuring as a major news story of everyday conversation.
Most people simply don't care that much about Andrew.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
Not just BoZo the Clown being a big feartie.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at goading.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
I see screwing up Vanilla formatting is the new Brit Nat secret weapon.
We know a feartie when we see one: big on mouth, short on action.
Pathetic. But you're a great example of why your side will make precisely the same mistakes as last time: pompous arrogance.
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
Not just BoZo the Clown being a big feartie.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at goading.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
I see screwing up Vanilla formatting is the new Brit Nat secret weapon.
We know a feartie when we see one: big on mouth, short on action.
Pathetic. But you're a great example of why your side will make precisely the same mistakes as last time: pompous arrogance.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Edinburgh south is probably one of Labour's safest seats in the whole of the UK in reality this next election. No northern england potential Brexit party threat. Strongly unionist, remain, an MP some distance from Corbyn. No real Lib Dem threat (cf London, Bristol etc), Tories that will consider voting tactically Labour, no extant green threat.
It'll likely be very strong odds on Labour when the markets are formed, and rightly so.
Thanks but I'm not so sure about Edinburgh. The perfect storm that made it one of the safest seats might not apply now. The Lib Dems could well be a real threat.
Ian Murray is as safe as houses in Edinburgh South. The SNP have made a huge effort in Shetland and have a good local candidate. They came slightly unstuck when it was revealed that while Sturgeon has managed to find the time to visit Shetland three times during the by-election campaign, she hadn't bothered to visit once during her five years as FM (except during election campaigns). Builds on the meme that the Nats only care about the Central Belt. Much-reduced LibDem majority inevitable as they will lose some votes to the plethora of independent candidates and their candidate has nothing like the profile of the retiring Tavish.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
Hes already making noises that indicate he would cooperate with investigations, meaning hes potentially trying to buy his way out by dropping others in it. Epsteins NY mansion had naked pictures of young women all over it, that painting of Bill Clinton in the blue dress and had very young women coming and going all day. Andrew spent time there, his claim to know nothing of Epsteins wrongdoing holds no water at all. This will blow up and consume many, I see Woody Allen the filthy perv has his name associated amongst others
It’s safer to talk about Andrew when out rather than brexit
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Both SNP gains imo. Tories will hold 2 maybe all 3 border seats and probably aberdeenshire west, maybe banff and Buchan and poss renfrewshire, lib dems should hold what they have, all close though except shetland and orkney, snp gains of the rest of the Tory seats, most of the labour seats if not all of them. I'm not stuart but that's my tuppence anyway
It is beginning to look as if it will be "Custer's last Stand" for the majority of the non SNP seats.
38% of Scots voted to Leave the EU, more even the 28% who voted Tory in 2017. Not one poll has the SNP polling over 50%, the biggest gainers since 2017 in Scotland have been the LDs and the Brexit Party NOT the SNP
An hour ago you told me that it was untrue that the front pages in Scotland a dream for the SNP. I await your apology expectantly. Or have you now given up on any kind of pretence that the truth matters?
They aren't, as I said the Daily Record is a pro Labour, anti Tory paper and prefers the SNP to the Tories and all the Scottish only papers are pro Remain despite 38% of Scots voting Leave
In what way are these headlines not a dream for the SNP? They are a direct assault on the idea of the union, illustrated by the poster child of unionism.
They are a direct assault on the union by diehard Remainers who dream of breaking up the Union as punishment for the Leave vote, what is new?
Yet still the SNP is polling below the 50% it got in 2015 BEFORE the Brexit vote
Funny how
Remember, support for independence was at 28% before the last referendum, and ended up at 45%. So, we are quite happy to be going into the next referendum starting at 50%.
The idea that Scotland is going to vote for independence after the shitshow of the last three years (which the breakup of the UK would make look like a cakewalk) is for the birds.
Ha ! Project fear...
While you have a point, that quite reasonable argument failed to prevent the Brexit vote - and if we no deal, the prospect of rejoining the EU as an independent nation might look rather attractive to Scotland.
It might, and the 45% will be very pumped up, but what's in it for Unionist floating voters? Years of mud wrestling and uncertainty?
I think everyone will have had enough.
They will be mud wrestling for longer with Brexit and the desire to get trade deals etc so what would you choose, uncertainty with a banana republic dictatorship or an easy rejoining of the EU.
And what if Brexit never takes place and the Government changes?
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
Arguably a lot of the core of modern Britain is due to it's brief time as a Republic. I don't think at it's core Britain is anything, particularly. It is, like all countries, whatever mythos works at the time to get people to believe in the borders.
Albeit a republic in which the second head of state was the son of the first head of state.
It was a really bad Republic. But they tried. And it was based on some interesting ideas. It was just bad... The mirror actually had a really good article about it only the other day (in relation to Johnson).
It failed the dont slaughter the Irish and ban nice things like Christmas, dancing and theatre test. And of course dear Oliver prorogued parliament and ruled by decree.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Exactly how many people in Scotland care about the Shetland Islands?
In Shetland you see a lot of grafitti where a Scots-Thistle on a road sign has been crossed out.
Since when did thistles have a nationaity?
Can we expect the English rose to be stopped at Hadrian's wall when Scotland breaks away from the Union?
Peter, Come Come , the Thistle has always been our national flower. We also like our roses, particularly red , so your English rose is safe. If they caught the culprits defiling the road signs they should be hung , drawn and quartered.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Both SNP gains imo. Tories will hold 2 maybe all 3 border seats and probably aberdeenshire west, maybe banff and Buchan and poss renfrewshire, lib dems should hold what they have, all close though except shetland and orkney, snp gains of the rest of the Tory seats, most of the labour seats if not all of them. I'm not stuart but that's my tuppence anyway
It is beginning to look as if it will be "Custer's last Stand" for the majority of the non SNP seats.
I think berwickshire, aberdeenshire west and Mundell are pretty rock solid safe, as is Shetland/Orkney. Everything else in play though
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Both SNP gains imo. Tories will hold 2 maybe all 3 border seats and probably aberdeenshire west, maybe banff and Buchan and poss renfrewshire, lib dems should hold what they have, all close though except shetland and orkney, snp gains of the rest of the Tory seats, most of the labour seats if not all of them. I'm not stuart but that's my tuppence anyway
It is beginning to look as if it will be "Custer's last Stand" for the majority of the non SNP seats.
Also known as the Battle of the Greasy Grass, which I would have thought you would have thought more appropriate.
I have never really giv. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
Hes already making noises that indicate he would cooperate with investigations, meaning hes potentially trying to buy his way out by dropping others in it. Epsteins NY mansion had naked pictures of young women all over it, that painting of Bill Clinton in the blue dress and had very young women coming and going all day. Andrew spent time there, his claim to know nothing of Epsteins wrongdoing holds no water at all. This will blow up and consume many, I see Woody Allen the filthy perv has his name associated amongst others
It’s safer to talk about Andrew when out rather than brexit
Well I think it's pretty obvious hes got problems looming. Question is whether the 'establishment' has enough clout with Trumps DoJ to do anything about it. Trump doesn't seem to care about the old guard very much
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
As was the fate of many a Continental monarchy...
The British monarchy has hitherto been good at changing in order to conserve.
This talk of republicanism is beside the point. When Charles succeeds the public will rally around (he's already becoming more popular) and will be seen as the fond grandfather. William has not put a foot wrong and will secure the future of the institution well into the distant future. Changing to a republic would be hugely complicated for a whole variety of reasons. Very few would have the appetite for it.
In that case I suggest you stake your mortgage on Better Together II (guffaw).
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
Oh dear. I've committed an offence of disagreeing with a Nat on independence.
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
Not just BoZo the Clown being a big feartie.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at goading.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
I see screwing up Vanilla formatting is the new Brit Nat secret weapon.
We know a feartie when we see one: big on mouth, short on action.
Pathetic. But you're a great example of why your side will make precisely the same mistakes as last time: pompous arrogance.
Crawl back under your rock and give us peace.
Don't be a dick to me Malc.
I can be a Richard Head to whomsoever I wish my good man. You are in the wrong there my friend and so should desist.
Comments
I think everyone will have had enough.
Current best price on No to independence is EVS (Boyle Sports).
Until you show us your betting slip, we’ll treat your “wisdom” on IndyRef2 will the attention it deserves: nil.
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Edit: I wasn't sure if @Xtrain was being sarcastic though.
On the other hand if we had been in the Euro we probably would have blown it up in 2008 so it's a good job we weren't
This isn't an active market yet so I have no interest in betting on it.
If and when it gets legs I shall take a look and my betting won't be based on my personal opinion. I traded both Yes and No last time at the right prices.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at goading.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
Can we expect the English rose to be stopped at Hadrian's wall when Scotland breaks away from the Union?
It'll likely be very strong odds on Labour when the markets are formed, and rightly so.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
Why would I be attracted at playing a speculative market at evens that might not mature for years?
I can get better returns on my money right now on Brexit markets for this year, betting on the next GE (or absence of it) and the Democratic race.
I see screwing up Vanilla formatting is the new Brit Nat secret weapon.
We know a feartie when we see one: big on mouth, short on action.
Refreshing lack of Old Firm shite.
And we've had, shall we say, quite a mixture.
We know a feartie when we see one: big on mouth, short on action.
Pathetic. But you're a great example of why your side will make precisely the same mistakes as last time: pompous arrogance.
I am not supporting defiling road signs just pointing out the recprocity in the sentence "Exactly how many people in Scotland care about the Shetland Islands"
You are also not understanding my point which I think I have explained quite enough today what with the ongoing Shetland situation so I will just leave it there for you to ponder and agree with. Or not.
Most people simply don't care that much about Andrew.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1167008588495314944?s=20
Crawl back under your rock and give us peace.
Don't be a dick to me Malc.
The SNP have made a huge effort in Shetland and have a good local candidate. They came slightly unstuck when it was revealed that while Sturgeon has managed to find the time to visit Shetland three times during the by-election campaign, she hadn't bothered to visit once during her five years as FM (except during election campaigns). Builds on the meme that the Nats only care about the Central Belt.
Much-reduced LibDem majority inevitable as they will lose some votes to the plethora of independent candidates and their candidate has nothing like the profile of the retiring Tavish.
Later day taliban?
We also like our roses, particularly red , so your English rose is safe.
If they caught the culprits defiling the road signs they should be hung , drawn and quartered.
WTF ?
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
Changing to a republic would be hugely complicated for a whole variety of reasons. Very few would have the appetite for it.
I can be a Richard Head to whomsoever I wish my good man. You are in the wrong there my friend and so should desist.
"I am not part of any Remainer plot..."
LOL.