This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
I have to say although I’d define myself as a Unionist, I think it means something very different to me than it seem to mean to many English people. I see no point in a union without consent and if the Scottish Gvt is elected on a manifesto of having a referendum it should have one. Come the campaign I then think English Unionists should basically say “we love being in a union with you but it’s your choice” and leave it to Scots to decide. Anything else sounds a bit imperialist to me.
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
I agree, it is bizarre that these people seem to think they have choice to allow or not. Any nonsense and Scottish Government should just start revocation of the union treaty.
Seems that with YouGov now giving Conservatives a 12% lead over Labour and Boris a 20% lead over Corbyn the 6% lead mentioned in the article is a pointless red herring. Anyway that is split between numerous parties - we could be into 100 - 200 seat Conservative majority territory very soon come an election.
That's the first interesting question. The second is the "don't knows". Whoever scoops up the "on balance" vote wins. Cummings and co understood this in 2016 which is why they ruthlessly targetted the undecided.
Oh Dear, Murdo who has been defeated 7 times trying to get elected , yet supped at the public teat each time by getting a losers list seat. A perfect leader for the Scottish pretend Tory party. Contribution for his almost £1M lottery win , some dire tweets about WATP
Whoosh!
The point being that the "Tories" "glory days" in Scotland were as the "Unionist" Party and not as the "Conservative" Party - which was seen as too "English". If they could get back to polling in the high thirties percentage of the vote it might be no bad thing. Where else are Unionist voters to go?
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.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Is the US a great example of a republic?
They are very divided nation with lots of fundamental untackled problems, and a head of state who is a politician widely hated outside his base.
gah! The US if full of people who love their country *as currently constituted*. Would you call a good ol' boy a US patriot if he wanted Kim Jong-Un as Supreme Leader?
Which is pretty well the position I've favoured since the Brexit vote, as it seemed pretty obvious back then.
I think the median view would be to remain part of the single market (common market) with votes and controls on free movement, and bilateral political cooperation rather than federal.
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?
The only thing that is tortured is your argument. Exchange constitutional monarchy with the Troubles or a part of the constitution that caused the Troubles and was changed with the GFA. Could a patriot during the Troubles love the country but still be wanting to see changes?
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchyhas direct rule of Northern Ireland from Westminster. 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?
The NI debate is held within the context of the constitutional monarchy that the United Kingdom is. It is a debate about territory and a legitimate debate at that. It doesn't change the constitutional make up of the United Kingdom.
The introduction of Stormont absolutely changed the constitutional makeup. And in a more significant and practical way than a hereditary figurehead does.
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
Wilfully failing to see it is a dig at Sturgeon.....
It'd be pretty hilarious if that was the intention, given Ruthie's entire and only leadership pitch from 2014 was No to Indy ref II: no policies, no vision, no consistency, and now no Ruth.
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
I thought I tipped the 9.5 or more seats first?
IIRC you tipped shortly after I published the thread header with the tip.
This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
I have to say although I’d define myself as a Unionist, I think it means something very different to me than it seem to mean to many English people. I see no point in a union without consent and if the Scottish Gvt is elected on a manifesto of having a referendum it should have one. Come the campaign I then think English Unionists should basically say “we love being in a union with you but it’s your choice” and leave it to Scots to decide. Anything else sounds a bit imperialist to me.
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
I thought I tipped the 9.5 or more seats first?
IIRC you tipped shortly after I published the thread header with the tip.
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
I thought I tipped the 9.5 or more seats first?
IIRC you tipped shortly after I published the thread header with the tip.
Curses.
Because I have so many winning tips I’ll let you have that one.
Plus you can always mock my ‘Trump will never be nominee’ betting strategy.
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
I thought I tipped the 9.5 or more seats first?
IIRC you tipped shortly after I published the thread header with the tip.
Curses.
Because I have so many winning tips I’ll let you have that one.
Plus you can always mock my ‘Trump will never be nominee’ betting strategy.
How are the US elections going for you currently ?
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
I thought I tipped the 9.5 or more seats first?
IIRC you tipped shortly after I published the thread header with the tip.
Curses.
Because I have so many winning tips I’ll let you have that one.
Plus you can always mock my ‘Trump will never be nominee’ betting strategy.
How are the US elections going for you currently ?
I’m very content with my lay the oldies strategy.
I mean Biden and Sanders cannot both be the nominee.
Thank heavens for Mike’s tip on Harris and I love Andrew Wang.
This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
I have to say although I’d define myself as a Unionist, I think it means something very different to me than it seem to mean to many English people. I see no point in a union without consent and if the Scottish Gvt is elected on a manifesto of having a referendum it should have one. Come the campaign I then think English Unionists should basically say “we love being in a union with you but it’s your choice” and leave it to Scots to decide. Anything else sounds a bit imperialist to me.
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
Very fair. And astonishingly rare.
That's how most English people view Scotland and it's desire to be in the Union (also Ireland and Wales). Try taking off the Nat-tinted specs.
Fraser Nelson is the one person I'm blocked from seeing on twitter. Could someone summarise for me? (Though given @Richard_Nabavi's comment, perhaps that's unnecessary).
Fraser Nelson is the one person I'm blocked from seeing on twitter. Could someone summarise for me? (Though given @Richard_Nabavi's comment, perhaps that's unnecessary).
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Fraser Nelson is the one person I'm blocked from seeing on twitter. Could someone summarise for me? (Though given @Richard_Nabavi's comment, perhaps that's unnecessary).
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
I thought I tipped the 9.5 or more seats first?
IIRC you tipped shortly after I published the thread header with the tip.
Curses.
Because I have so many winning tips I’ll let you have that one.
Plus you can always mock my ‘Trump will never be nominee’ betting strategy.
Found the posts and I was mis remembering - I had tipped the unbelievable free money of SNP < 51.5 seats that William Hill offered.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
O those that Putin would destroy, he first drives mad!
I wake up to find Brexit has driven a stalwart Tory yeoman like Big G to flirt with republicanism!
I must confess I was shocked. It'll take me some hours to process. He's not just flirting with it, he's snogging it on the mouth WITH TONGUES and dragging it thru the town square on a lead to flaunt - FLAUNT - his republicanism like it was a normal thing to do. Honestly, you think you know people...
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Let’s suppose the rebels and opposition unite and pass a simple Act. What will it say?
I think the vehicle for moving around exit dates subject to approval of the House may have gone. I suppose the PM can be given a legal duty to request an extension of a given format, but what does “request” mean? We had this debate when it was Theresa May, but she (astonishing as this now seems to say) was a stickler for observing the rights of Parliament compared to Boris. To give an extreme example he could presumably say “I’m requesting the following, as instructed, and by the way if you say yes and I’m PM come the budget round I’ll veto the lot”.
In short I remain unconvinced Parliament has a vehicle to really force anything here, other the obvious of bringing down the Gvt. Number 10 will have wargamed this, and I think this legislation is what they are hoping for - to make rebels waste this week.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
This nonsense keeps getting repeated verbatim by Brexiteers Prorouging is very different from a recess, which in any case would likely have been cancelled. Plus the QS takes up another 6 days.
So the number of Parlaimentary sitting days has been drastically reduced from what it would have been.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Because Casino Royale is a long standing Leaver you are a JCL Leaver he sees the big picture.
This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
I have to say although I’d define myself as a Unionist, I think it means something very different to me than it seem to mean to many English people. I see no point in a union without consent and if the Scottish Gvt is elected on a manifesto of having a referendum it should have one. Come the campaign I then think English Unionists should basically say “we love being in a union with you but it’s your choice” and leave it to Scots to decide. Anything else sounds a bit imperialist to me.
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
Very fair. And astonishingly rare.
That's how most English people view Scotland and it's desire to be in the Union (also Ireland and Wales). Try taking off the Nat-tinted specs.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens....
Simply incorrect, as Parliament has not voted to suspend the session for the conference season.
I thought you were one for the democratic niceties ?
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Justify extending the current Parliament. It is already the longest for nearly 400 years.
Fraser Nelson is the one person I'm blocked from seeing on twitter. Could someone summarise for me? (Though given @Richard_Nabavi's comment, perhaps that's unnecessary).
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Because Casino Royale is a long standing Leaver you are a JCL Leaver he sees the big picture.
Do I have to dig up the tweet I posted yesterday again.
Leave with a deal and we have 2-5 more years of Brexit pain as a final deal is agreed with the EU Leave with No deal and we have 2-50 more years of Brexit being everything as every minor item is argued over in minute detail.
To be honest I think revoking is the best plan - 30% of people will hate it (but they will hate any result regardless) and we can just get on with things.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Justify extending the current Parliament. It is already the longest for nearly 400 years.
You can't.
We are due to leave the EU without a deal very shortly. Any deal - and your PM promises he will return with one - will have to be debated in, and approved by, Parliament. Proroguing Parliament in this manner reduces its function to that of a rubber stamp.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Justify extending the current Parliament. It is already the longest for nearly 400 years.
You can't.
Justify proroguing it for more than the usual 2-3 days.
Let’s suppose the rebels and opposition unite and pass a simple Act. What will it say? ....
If I were drafting it, it would say:
1. The Chair of the Brexit Select Committee is appointed the UK's High Representative for Article 50, authorised by parliament to negotiate an extension of between X and Y months with the EU.
2. In the event that agreement with the EU cannot be reached by the 15th October, the UK's High Representative for Article 50 is authorised and instructed by parliament to revoke the UK's notice Article 50, unless parliament votes otherwise.
Oh Dear, Murdo who has been defeated 7 times trying to get elected , yet supped at the public teat each time by getting a losers list seat. A perfect leader for the Scottish pretend Tory party. Contribution for his almost £1M lottery win , some dire tweets about WATP
Whoosh!
The point being that the "Tories" "glory days" in Scotland were as the "Unionist" Party and not as the "Conservative" Party - which was seen as too "English". If they could get back to polling in the high thirties percentage of the vote it might be no bad thing. Where else are Unionist voters to go?
I suspect the LDs will pick up some Unionist Remainers who voted Tory in 2017 but the Tories will keep most of their Leave voters in Scotland.
In fact I think Slab could come 4th at the next general election in Scotland, the Shetland by election tonight might be an indicator
This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
I have to say although I’d define myself as a Unionist, I think it means something very different to me than it seem to mean to many English people. I see no point in a union without consent and if the Scottish Gvt is elected on a manifesto of having a referendum it should have one. Come the campaign I then think English Unionists should basically say “we love being in a union with you but it’s your choice” and leave it to Scots to decide. Anything else sounds a bit imperialist to me.
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
Very fair. And astonishingly rare.
That's how most English people view Scotland and it's desire to be in the Union (also Ireland and Wales). Try taking off the Nat-tinted specs.
In 2017 rUK people thought Scotland shouldn't be allowed a second referendum, 51-34%, last month they were in favour 41-32%. It's good to see UK opinion evolving on the subject, but if you think it's been a settled view for any length of time, you may be wearing tinted specs yourself.
Of course the current and previous governments have been very stridently opposed to 'allowing' any such referendum..
Let’s suppose the rebels and opposition unite and pass a simple Act. What will it say? ....
If I were drafting it, it would say:
1. The Chair of the Brexit Select Committee is appointed the UK's High Representative for Article 50, authorised by parliament to negotiate an extension of between X and Y months with the EU.
2. In the event that agreement with the EU cannot be reached by the 15th October, the UK's High Representative for Article 50 is authorised and instructed by parliament to revoke the UK's notice Article 50, unless parliament votes otherwise.
And Boris says to the EU "Up for another 6 months of faffing about?" And the EU says "No thanks. The door is over there."
If they want to "legislate" they need to get a new government and new PM.
@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.
No Deal seems to be the least popular positive choice, as well as the most disliked one. Again, this is going to begin to matter a lot politically once we are living through it.
More see No Deal as a very good outcome than any other Brexit option
One thing I can't remember being discussed here is this scenario (disclaimer: This is not a prediction but a hypothetical).
Parliament finds a way to compell Johnson to go to Brussels and ask for another extension. Boris "kicks the can" until October 30 when he anounces that he was elected PM on the policy "we will be leaving on the 31st" and refuses to carry out the parliamentary mandate. The UK leaves with no deal on the 31st.
I understand that BJ will be held in contempt of parliament, but what exactly are the ramifications of that. Does he get a slap on the wrist from John Bercow, or is he thrown out of office? Somehow I cannot see the latter being forceable without a VoNC. And once again are there enough Tories prepared to give up their Westminster careers to win a VoNC once the UK has actually left the EU?
I have a simple solution. Will of the people means that the 2015 parliament overrules the 2017 parliament. In the current parliament there are fewer Tory MPs than in the previous one. So why not simply reinstate the MPs from the 2015 parliament so that they can implement the business of the 2015 parliament and thus restore democracy
This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
I have to say although I’d define myself as a Unionist, I think it means something very different to me than it seem to mean to many English people. I see no point in a union without consent and if the Scottish Gvt is elected on a manifesto of having a referendum it should have one. Come the campaign I then think English Unionists should basically say “we love being in a union with you but it’s your choice” and leave it to Scots to decide. Anything else sounds a bit imperialist to me.
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Even if it was 6 weeks, what are Remainers going to accomplish in 6 weeks they have failed todo in over 3 years?
Let’s suppose the rebels and opposition unite and pass a simple Act. What will it say? ....
If I were drafting it, it would say:
1. The Chair of the Brexit Select Committee is appointed the UK's High Representative for Article 50, authorised by parliament to negotiate an extension of between X and Y months with the EU.
2. In the event that agreement with the EU cannot be reached by the 15th October, the UK's High Representative for Article 50 is authorised and instructed by parliament to revoke the UK's notice Article 50, unless parliament votes otherwise.
And Boris says to the EU "Up for another 6 months of faffing about?" And the EU says "No thanks. The door is over there."
If they want to "legislate" they need to get a new government and new PM.
Not at all. The next stage would be a VONC, leading to an election, unless Boris can come back with a deal which he can sell to the Commons (which is highly unlikely, but who knows?).
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Even if it was 6 weeks, what are Remainers going to accomplish in 6 weeks they have failed todo in over 3 years?
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
6 weeks? No it is 4 scheduled sitting days.
I think you may be getting confused with the summer holidays MPs considered to be more important than sorting out Brexit first. Those were 6 weeks, obviously Brexit is less important to them than disrupting their holidays.
@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.
No Deal seems to be the least popular positive choice, as well as the most disliked one. Again, this is going to begin to matter a lot politically once we are living through it.
More see No Deal as a very good outcome than any other Brexit option
The speed you're spinning at, you sound like an F1 turbo.
Let’s suppose the rebels and opposition unite and pass a simple Act. What will it say? ....
If I were drafting it, it would say:
1. The Chair of the Brexit Select Committee is appointed the UK's High Representative for Article 50, authorised by parliament to negotiate an extension of between X and Y months with the EU.
2. In the event that agreement with the EU cannot be reached by the 15th October, the UK's High Representative for Article 50 is authorised and instructed by parliament to revoke the UK's notice Article 50, unless parliament votes otherwise.
Interesting, and I see where you’re going with that as it is reasonably simple and “agreeable”. But it’s still open to the PM to say “if you agree his extension I’ll be very cross and will do undesirable thing X”, and the Committee Chair can’t really offer much about what will happen in the 6 months. Though I suppose we can assume an immediate election. I’d also want some pretty detailed legal advice on whether a person appointed by Parliament can be given that power (i.e. is it Parliament’s to give).
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
6 weeks? No it is 4 scheduled sitting days.
I think you may be getting confused with the summer holidays MPs considered to be more important than sorting out Brexit first. Those were 6 weeks, obviously Brexit is less important to them than disrupting their holidays.
@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.
No Deal seems to be the least popular positive choice, as well as the most disliked one. Again, this is going to begin to matter a lot politically once we are living through it.
More see No Deal as a very good outcome than any other Brexit option
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
6 weeks? No it is 4 scheduled sitting days.
I think you may be getting confused with the summer holidays MPs considered to be more important than sorting out Brexit first. Those were 6 weeks, obviously Brexit is less important to them than disrupting their holidays.
I think you miss the difference between Proroguing and a Recess
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Justify extending the current Parliament. It is already the longest for nearly 400 years.
You can't.
Justify proroguing it for more than the usual 2-3 days.
It's 4 scheduled sitting days. Same length as standard.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
I owe you an apology CR - you are a far bigger man than I ever gave you credit for. I can see how many of my posts directed at you would have been infuriating. For that I am sorry.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
6 weeks? No it is 4 scheduled sitting days.
I think you may be getting confused with the summer holidays MPs considered to be more important than sorting out Brexit first. Those were 6 weeks, obviously Brexit is less important to them than disrupting their holidays.
For someone so attached to 'democracy' that you're ready to ignore the opinions of two thirds of the NI electorate, you seem remarkably ready to adopt the threadbare spinning of the government over their shuttering of Parliament.
An unkinder soul than I might accuse you of hypocrisy.
@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.
29% for May's Deal as a reasonable compromise is actually higher than soft Brexit on that poll, Remain is almost as divisive as No Deal is
But that's because many more say they see Soft Brexit as a "fairly good" or "very good" outcome and the options are mutually exclusive (which is odd, as a "reasonable compromise" would, in my view at least, be a "very good" outcome).
I agree Remain is nearly as divisive as No Deal, and am an outlier as a Lib Dem in supporting Soft Brexit as not my personal favourite option, but one I'd happily embrace for the good of healing the wounds. I regret that I think only one Lib Dem MP - Norman Lamb - backed the Clarke and Boles proposals in April.
EDIT: Tim Farron also voted for Boles, but abstained on Clarke.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Justify extending the current Parliament. It is already the longest for nearly 400 years.
You can't.
Justify proroguing it for more than the usual 2-3 days.
It's 4 scheduled sitting days. Same length as standard.
Deliberately incorrect, as I have pointed out.
Parliament was scheduled to sit unless the conference recess was voted on. It wasn't.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
Justify extending the current Parliament. It is already the longest for nearly 400 years.
You can't.
Justify proroguing it for more than the usual 2-3 days.
It's 4 scheduled sitting days. Same length as standard.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Stop lying. Its not 4 days, its 6 weeks.
6 weeks? No it is 4 scheduled sitting days.
I think you may be getting confused with the summer holidays MPs considered to be more important than sorting out Brexit first. Those were 6 weeks, obviously Brexit is less important to them than disrupting their holidays.
Laughably misinformed or deliberately misleading.
You’re going to hear a lot more of it. It’s the £350m on the bus. You get sucked into arguing about what sounds like process; meanwhile one day soon Boris changes the subject with a controversial, popular domestic policy. We can see that’s coming because of the SR next week, if nothing else (and no one can sensible stop that taking up parliamentary time or Local Gvt funds run out - not sure too many have spotted that).
Oh Dear, Murdo who has been defeated 7 times trying to get elected , yet supped at the public teat each time by getting a losers list seat. A perfect leader for the Scottish pretend Tory party. Contribution for his almost £1M lottery win , some dire tweets about WATP
Whoosh!
The point being that the "Tories" "glory days" in Scotland were as the "Unionist" Party and not as the "Conservative" Party - which was seen as too "English". If they could get back to polling in the high thirties percentage of the vote it might be no bad thing. Where else are Unionist voters to go?
LOL you are dreaming if you think Tories will ever get to that level, not a chance. Especially if they have Murdo Loser as their favourite to be next leader. PS: I understood your post , your juvenile Scottp type whoosh shows your stupidity. Nothing will ever make the Tories popular in Scotland was my point. You may think you are a clever smartarse but you need to start showing it.
Comments
I thought you were supposed to be in Aberdeenshire?
The point being that the "Tories" "glory days" in Scotland were as the "Unionist" Party and not as the "Conservative" Party - which was seen as too "English". If they could get back to polling in the high thirties percentage of the vote it might be no bad thing. Where else are Unionist voters to go?
https://twitter.com/bbckamal/status/1167029461138714624?s=20
Unfortunately that's not on the table.
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1166965512552833024?s=20
#RuthForFM
Plus you can always mock my ‘Trump will never be nominee’ betting strategy.
Good to see, and a good decision.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/1165745430740774912
He was happy to vote for a GE in 2017 with a much higher polling deficit
I mean Biden and Sanders cannot both be the nominee.
Thank heavens for Mike’s tip on Harris and I love Andrew Wang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOoRAp5QtM
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
*Checks notes, ah yes blame autocorrect*
Hmm. Yes, I'm with Richard.
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
I think the vehicle for moving around exit dates subject to approval of the House may have gone. I suppose the PM can be given a legal duty to request an extension of a given format, but what does “request” mean? We had this debate when it was Theresa May, but she (astonishing as this now seems to say) was a stickler for observing the rights of Parliament compared to Boris. To give an extreme example he could presumably say “I’m requesting the following, as instructed, and by the way if you say yes and I’m PM come the budget round I’ll veto the lot”.
In short I remain unconvinced Parliament has a vehicle to really force anything here, other the obvious of bringing down the Gvt. Number 10 will have wargamed this, and I think this legislation is what they are hoping for - to make rebels waste this week.
So the number of Parlaimentary sitting days has been drastically reduced from what it would have been.
Glass houses.
I thought you were one for the democratic niceties ?
You can't.
Leave with a deal and we have 2-5 more years of Brexit pain as a final deal is agreed with the EU
Leave with No deal and we have 2-50 more years of Brexit being everything as every minor item is argued over in minute detail.
To be honest I think revoking is the best plan - 30% of people will hate it (but they will hate any result regardless) and we can just get on with things.
Any deal - and your PM promises he will return with one - will have to be debated in, and approved by, Parliament.
Proroguing Parliament in this manner reduces its function to that of a rubber stamp.
1. The Chair of the Brexit Select Committee is appointed the UK's High Representative for Article 50, authorised by parliament to negotiate an extension of between X and Y months with the EU.
2. In the event that agreement with the EU cannot be reached by the 15th October, the UK's High Representative for Article 50 is authorised and instructed by parliament to revoke the UK's notice Article 50, unless parliament votes otherwise.
In fact I think Slab could come 4th at the next general election in Scotland, the Shetland by election tonight might be an indicator
Of course the current and previous governments have been very stridently opposed to 'allowing' any such referendum..
If they want to "legislate" they need to get a new government and new PM.
Parliament finds a way to compell Johnson to go to Brussels and ask for another extension.
Boris "kicks the can" until October 30 when he anounces that he was elected PM on the policy "we will be leaving on the 31st" and refuses to carry out the parliamentary mandate.
The UK leaves with no deal on the 31st.
I understand that BJ will be held in contempt of parliament, but what exactly are the ramifications of that. Does he get a slap on the wrist from John Bercow, or is he thrown out of office? Somehow I cannot see the latter being forceable without a VoNC. And once again are there enough Tories prepared to give up their Westminster careers to win a VoNC once the UK has actually left the EU?
I think you may be getting confused with the summer holidays MPs considered to be more important than sorting out Brexit first. Those were 6 weeks, obviously Brexit is less important to them than disrupting their holidays.
An unkinder soul than I might accuse you of hypocrisy.
I'm not seeing any betting markets yet
I agree Remain is nearly as divisive as No Deal, and am an outlier as a Lib Dem in supporting Soft Brexit as not my personal favourite option, but one I'd happily embrace for the good of healing the wounds. I regret that I think only one Lib Dem MP - Norman Lamb - backed the Clarke and Boles proposals in April.
EDIT: Tim Farron also voted for Boles, but abstained on Clarke.
Parliament was scheduled to sit unless the conference recess was voted on.
It wasn't.
PS: I understood your post , your juvenile Scottp type whoosh shows your stupidity. Nothing will ever make the Tories popular in Scotland was my point. You may think you are a clever smartarse but you need to start showing it.