The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
They can speak as soon as the people demanding another referendum learn to use a dictionary and explain how a generation now means 4 years.
Did the SNP think we meant hamster generations?
I'm not Scottish, but I think they probably thought that voting to stay in the EU meant that they would stay in the EU
Please show me where the single market, or EU membership, or anything else whatsoever was mentioned on the Indyref ballot paper other than the question of remaining in or leaving the Union.
I'm quite serious. The referendum was legally binding, and its terms were agreed by mutual consent. If the vote had gone the other way and independence had turned out to be a crock of shit, would the SNP now be conceding a Rejoin referendum in 2020? No. effing. way.
The people could vote for a Labour-Conservative-LibDem government to call a referendum, or even to rejoin straight away.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
Nobody knows how the future is going to pan out. Everything is merely a guess based on probabilities.
I mean, that statement is of course accurate.
It doesn't relate to the constitutionality of an independence vote, however....
We’re not arguing about whether something is constitutional or not.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
How is there a moral or democratic case?
People vote for constitutional issues in a referendum. The result was given.
They vote for the party to govern on devolved issues at Holyrood in Holyrood elections.
The two are mutually exclusive, however the nationalists want to play it.
If the people of Scotland vote in a SNP government next May elected on the promise of indy 2 to the Scottish people, Westminster cannot ignore that mandate or if they do the consequences for the union will be terminal
There is nothing to fear from indy2 anyway as far as I am concerned
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
EdM is a bit tough to judge as isn't it mostly concluded the polls were flawed in that period? He also never lead came close on approval, from my recollection.
Corbyn never came close on approval either, he was never even net positive was he?
If Starmer were to slightly best Corbyn's 2017 performance, he'd almost certainly become PM.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
They can speak as soon as the people demanding another referendum learn to use a dictionary and explain how a generation now means 4 years.
Did the SNP think we meant hamster generations?
I'm not Scottish, but I think they probably thought that voting to stay in the EU meant that they would stay in the EU
Please show me where the single market, or EU membership, or anything else whatsoever was mentioned on the Indyref ballot paper other than the question of remaining in or leaving the Union.
I'm quite serious. The referendum was legally binding, and its terms were agreed by mutual consent. If the vote had gone the other way and independence had turned out to be a crock of shit, would the SNP now be conceding a Rejoin referendum in 2020? No. effing. way.
There was no mention of once in a generation on the ballot paper nor in the Edinburgh Agreement that established the conditions of the referendum.
The fact that you seem to think that the last referendum was 4 years ago is a pretty good sign that not for the first time you're pontificating on something you know hee haw about.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
Nobody knows how the future is going to pan out. Everything is merely a guess based on probabilities.
I mean, that statement is of course accurate.
It doesn't relate to the constitutionality of an independence vote, however....
We’re not arguing about whether something is constitutional or not.
So are you arguing over the size of the Tory majority?
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
It's pure expedience, like Dom driving around the country. Valid tactic, but problem is it leaves one shanghaied when crowds roam the country tearing down statues and one has to appeal to their sportsmanship and propriety.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
But which one? Put yourself in the position and tell me which of the 2 would make you more uneasy than the other about the impending marriage.
C'mon - gun to head.
I think I already answered that. Mr. Swastika is probably more physically dangerous to me, but apart from that and the fact that I could possibly mock Mr. H&S about JCR politics, there's nothing in it.
Either way: no date, no wedding, no dice.
Ok. I must accept your equivalence of antifa to nazism then. If that's what you feel that's what you feel. Surprised.
The only real difference between the two sides and the people in them is your nauseating ability to excuse one side because they are to the "left". Antifa is a fascist movement by any definition on what they want to achieve which is a totalarian state which doesnt do dissent and all they disagree with must be fed to the fire , it will just like the nazi's start with books, statues and painting and end with people. You support these people take a good look at yourself.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
How is there a moral or democratic case?
People vote for constitutional issues in a referendum. The result was given.
They vote for the party to govern on devolved issues at Holyrood in Holyrood elections.
The two are mutually exclusive, however the nationalists want to play it.
If the people of Scotland vote in a SNP government next May elected on the promise of indy 2 to the Scottish people, Westminster cannot ignore that mandate or if they do the consequences for the union will be terminal
There is nothing to fear from indy2 anyway as far as I am concerned
On the latter point we agree entirely.
But Westminster can of course ignore the SNP on this issue. It is literally not part of their constitutional remit.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
How is there a moral or democratic case?
People vote for constitutional issues in a referendum. The result was given.
They vote for the party to govern on devolved issues at Holyrood in Holyrood elections.
The two are mutually exclusive, however the nationalists want to play it.
If the people of Scotland vote in a SNP government next May elected on the promise of indy 2 to the Scottish people, Westminster cannot ignore that mandate or if they do the consequences for the union will be terminal
There is nothing to fear from indy2 anyway as far as I am concerned
Not if turnout next May is low. Such a result would not override the result of a Referendum which saw a turnout of 85%.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
Nobody knows how the future is going to pan out. Everything is merely a guess based on probabilities.
I mean, that statement is of course accurate.
It doesn't relate to the constitutionality of an independence vote, however....
We’re not arguing about whether something is constitutional or not.
So are you arguing over the size of the Tory majority?
We’re arguing about whether it’s “certain” that indyref2 wont happen under the current Conservative Government.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
The real danger is the SNP will call their own ballot if Westminster does not agree to indy2 and likely due to that refusal that ballot would provide a big majority in favour of leaving the union
For what it's worth, I don't think Indy Ref will happen under a Tory Government. I don't think that's the right decision if the SNP win a clear mandate (again) but I do think the Tories won't allow it.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
For what it's worth, I don't think Indy Ref will happen under a Tory Government. I don't think that's the right decision if the SNP win a clear mandate (again) but I do think the Tories won't allow it.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
The real danger is the SNP will call their own ballot if Westminster does not agree to indy2 and likely due to that refusal that ballot would provide a big majority in favour of leaving the union
A plastic poll won't carry any weight, and would I suspect be boycotted by all but fervent pro-indies.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
If I were a Labour strategist, I would start attacking the SNP very hard on domestic issues. And as the other side of the same coin, suggest that monomaniacal focus on Independence is clouding their ability to run those parts of the state that they're constitutionally empowered to do. Of course, it also helps to diminish the yearning for independence at the same time - 'They can't get x right now, why should we trust them with y and z'?
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
I thought he already had
Only in the background.
Scot Lab are coming out against Indy Ref in the elections next year but Labour itself has not yet taken a very strong position.
They would be wise to take one soon. No to Independence, strong on the union, kill those ideas of SNP support dead early. That is an improvement on Ed M already.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
You're making me repeat myself...
By this time after the 2010 GE, Labour had crossed over to a lead in the rolling average of all opinion polls. They held that lead for over 4 years, and on several occasions during the 2010-2015 Parliament, Ed Miliband's Labour outpolled David Cameron's Tories by as much as 15%.
Ed Miliband is now a professional reviewer of Labour post-defeat analyses.
The post-2010 context was very different though in that Labour almost immediately recovered the left of centre voters who had switched to the LDs. Uproar over Clegg entering the Coalition with the Tories ensured that. Post 2019 not only did the Tories enjoy the polling boost invariably received by Governments re-elected with big majorities, they have been clear beneficiaries of the 'rallying around the flag' effect seen across much of the world. Most of the resultant lead now appears to have been frittered away - even before real economic pain hits home.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
If I were a Labour strategist, I would start attacking the SNP very hard on domestic issues. And as the other side of the same coin, suggest that monomaniacal focus on Independence is clouding their ability to run those parts of the state that they're constitutionally empowered to do. Of course, it also helps to diminish the yearning for independence at the same time - 'They can't get x right now, why should we trust them with y and z'?
That is what they should and I hope they will do in the coming weeks.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
I see 1000 people at that German meat processing plant have now tested positive. Covid certainly loves those places.
How many work there out of interest if you know? That is a serious blow to the idea that most won't catch it.
I think i read ~6000.
Thanks. A disturbing percentage for everything back to normal. These places need a serious looking into. For example, how much of our annual seasonal flu is spread like this?
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
How is there a moral or democratic case?
People vote for constitutional issues in a referendum. The result was given.
They vote for the party to govern on devolved issues at Holyrood in Holyrood elections.
The two are mutually exclusive, however the nationalists want to play it.
If the people of Scotland vote in a SNP government next May elected on the promise of indy 2 to the Scottish people, Westminster cannot ignore that mandate or if they do the consequences for the union will be terminal
There is nothing to fear from indy2 anyway as far as I am concerned
On the latter point we agree entirely.
But Westminster can of course ignore the SNP on this issue. It is literally not part of their constitutional remit.
Well constitutionally, sovereignity lies with the Scottish people, not via Westminster. Unlike England/Wales.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
Of course there is. the Tories won a majority of 80 on a manifesto commitment of no indyref2 for a generation.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
With this government you’re always one bad headline away from a new policy.
The Tory lead is somewhere between 4 and 8 points, I suspect. Call it 6.
Based on 2017 where Labour went in 20 points behind, 2019 where they went in many points behind, if they go in ahead, I suspect they'll walk to a minority Government. Labour saw polling gains in all of those elections, albeit still did horrifically badly.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
With this government you’re always one bad headline away from a new policy.
Nope, you haven't got it have you.
It isnt the papers.
It is the focus groups.
And, as you'll have no doubt seen, non political wonks actually applaud Govts for u-turns.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
No, you are comparing the most extreme right wing - Nazi Germany - with a generic form of Marxism. This is a false comparison.
If my daughter came in with a man wearing a Pol Pot tee shirt, who calmly told me he indeed wants to murder all the bourgeoisie and smash their babies against trees, I might be even more alarmed by him than I am by the pathetic guy wearing the swastika
But that's dragging Pol Pot back in again. We'd just got rid of him from the discussion.
Anyway you have implicitly answered. You'd far rather pass the salt to a misguided far lefty than a brutal neanderthal white supremacist.
It's good to hear.
The Communist has better prospects. In 20 years time he'll be writing articles, chairing inquiries and advising the Tory government.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
Nearly right CHB. All Labour is useless!
Labour under Starmer is dangerously electable.
😀
Not sure how you can conclude otherwise? What is the clear trend? Labour support increasing and Tory support reducing. It's not fast - but we're not far into this Parliament.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
The real danger is the SNP will call their own ballot if Westminster does not agree to indy2 and likely due to that refusal that ballot would provide a big majority in favour of leaving the union
Even if they did Westminster would not accept such an illegal vote as Madrid ignored the illegal Catalan vote and Unionists would boycott it, though Sturgeon shows no signs of acting without Westminster approval
The Conservative Party has increased its vote share in every general election this millennium - all 6 of them!
Lucky number 7?
Those graphs of support by age were absolutely staggering, and account for the vast majority of this. I've campaigned for the Tories in every election since 2005, and even I didn't imagine it was that stark a change....
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
With this government you’re always one bad headline away from a new policy.
Nope, you haven't got it have you.
It isnt the papers.
It is the focus groups.
And, as you'll have no doubt seen, non political wonks actually applaud Govts for u-turns.
We’re just one focus group away from you applauding Indy Ref 2.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
The real danger is the SNP will call their own ballot if Westminster does not agree to indy2 and likely due to that refusal that ballot would provide a big majority in favour of leaving the union
But NO voters would boycott such a vote and deprive it of legitimacy.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
The real danger is the SNP will call their own ballot if Westminster does not agree to indy2 and likely due to that refusal that ballot would provide a big majority in favour of leaving the union
Even if they did Westminster would not accept such an illegal vote as Madrid ignored the illegal Catalan vote and Unionists would boycott it, though Sturgeon shows no signs of acting without Westminster approval
Do you get aroused at the thought of the Police dragging old ladies out of polling stations by their hair for partaking in an “illegal referendum”?
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
My view on this is quite simple, if a majority of Scots vote for pro Indy parties, I don't see how you can conclude Independence isn't something to be considered.
Forget all this once in a lifetime stuff, if a party offers something and they keep winning on it, they surely must be allowed to implement it.
Like I said before, Brexit is now the settled will despite the majority of the country voting against it in 2019. Of course PB Tories ignore that conveniently.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out firmly in favour of the Union quite soon.
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Telegraph is reporting the same.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
The idea of a) coalitions and especially b) coalitions with the SNP are anathema to the voters.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Starmer at least seems to have an ounce of political strategy and to me being pro-Union and very much anti-Independence looks the best one for actually winning seats to form a Government, even if in Scotland it results in the SNP winning.
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
Nearly right CHB. All Labour is useless!
Labour under Starmer is dangerously electable.
😀
Not sure how you can conclude otherwise? What is the clear trend? Labour support increasing and Tory support reducing. It's not fast - but we're not far into this Parliament.
I must be away to bed now so I have enough energy for more meaningful input tomorrow 😀.
But to answer your question. Look at the polls leading up to 1987 and 1992!
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Honestly I don't think we did choose Starmer by accident.
A good chunk of the membership, around 60% by my count, were fed up with losing. In the remaining 40%, about 20% wanted some unity and the remaining 20% are the nutters.
Starmer would have won against Corbyn, polling showed that.
I voted Starmer because he was clearly the best and I could see a future PM in him. I always wanted Corbyn to be PM but even I must accept he never really looked like one from day one, same for Ed M.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
With this government you’re always one bad headline away from a new policy.
Nope, you haven't got it have you.
It isnt the papers.
It is the focus groups.
And, as you'll have no doubt seen, non political wonks actually applaud Govts for u-turns.
We’re just one focus group away from you applauding Indy Ref 2.
Careful what you wish for - if Scotland's MPs evaporated tomorrow, the Conservative majority would automatically receive a net increase of 40...
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
They can speak as soon as the people demanding another referendum learn to use a dictionary and explain how a generation now means 4 years.
Did the SNP think we meant hamster generations?
I'm not Scottish, but I think they probably thought that voting to stay in the EU meant that they would stay in the EU
Please show me where the single market, or EU membership, or anything else whatsoever was mentioned on the Indyref ballot paper other than the question of remaining in or leaving the Union.
I'm quite serious. The referendum was legally binding, and its terms were agreed by mutual consent. If the vote had gone the other way and independence had turned out to be a crock of shit, would the SNP now be conceding a Rejoin referendum in 2020? No. effing. way.
There was no mention of once in a generation on the ballot paper nor in the Edinburgh Agreement that established the conditions of the referendum.
The fact that you seem to think that the last referendum was 4 years ago is a pretty good sign that not for the first time you're pontificating on something you know hee haw about.
The EU was clear. If Scotland went independent and wanted to be in the EU it would have to reapply.
The implication was that if EU membership was important then staying in the UK was the way to do it
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
With this government you’re always one bad headline away from a new policy.
Nope, you haven't got it have you.
It isnt the papers.
It is the focus groups.
And, as you'll have no doubt seen, non political wonks actually applaud Govts for u-turns.
We’re just one focus group away from you applauding Indy Ref 2.
Careful what you wish for - if Scotland's MPs evaporated tomorrow, the Conservative majority would automatically receive a net increase of 40...
I'm wondering if the Unionists in Scotland may end up like the Federalists in Quebec? Needing to put aside Party loyalties, be pro more devolution and roll up into a single force, embracing all views from far left to right like the PLQ to get any sniff of power? This is my first ever post re Scotland as I know nowt about it. But I do know what happened in Canada.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
With this government you’re always one bad headline away from a new policy.
Nope, you haven't got it have you.
It isnt the papers.
It is the focus groups.
And, as you'll have no doubt seen, non political wonks actually applaud Govts for u-turns.
We’re just one focus group away from you applauding Indy Ref 2.
Careful what you wish for - if Scotland's MPs evaporated tomorrow, the Conservative majority would automatically receive a net increase of 40...
What difference would that make?
Eh? Labour would be even further away from removing the Tory majority, let alone forming one of their own, obviously.
I'm wondering if the Unionists in Scotland may end up like the Federalists in Quebec? Needing to put aside Party loyalties, be pro more devolution and roll up into a single force, embracing all views from far left to right like the PLQ to get any sniff of power? This is my first ever post re Scotland as I know nowt about it. But I do know what happened in Canada.
I was staggered how many businesses that I deal with in Scotland quietly outlined to me their plans to move to England in the event of a Yes victory, during the last referendum.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Honestly I don't think we did choose Starmer by accident.
A good chunk of the membership, around 60% by my count, were fed up with losing. In the remaining 40%, about 20% wanted some unity and the remaining 20% are the nutters.
Starmer would have won against Corbyn, polling showed that.
I voted Starmer because he was clearly the best and I could see a future PM in him. I always wanted Corbyn to be PM but even I must accept he never really looked like one from day one, same for Ed M.
I voted for Starmer, perhaps I didn't phrase that too well.
What I meant to say was that when we chose Starmer as leader we didn't know that we were going to be facing a prolonged economic and health crisis and that Starmer's character would play particularly well in those circumstances.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
40% voted for Corbyn, remember! I want to know how/why that happened. Why did Labour gain 8% of the vote under a leader even then, most people didn't like. I need that explained.
Starmer can surely best that. His strategy must surely be 40% and hoping more Tories stay at home or vote Lib Dem. Piss off as few people as possible and ensure people don't come out to vote against you.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
What this government does stems more on tomorrows headlines and Boris’s ego and less on their majority. As such you can’t rule anything out with this lot. Nighty night.
I'm baffled that people have still not twigged how little influence the press have on this government. Less so than any since Major, maybe Thatcher.
Rashford.
Blimey, did he end up replacing Osborne at the Standrd?
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
With this government you’re always one bad headline away from a new policy.
Nope, you haven't got it have you.
It isnt the papers.
It is the focus groups.
And, as you'll have no doubt seen, non political wonks actually applaud Govts for u-turns.
We’re just one focus group away from you applauding Indy Ref 2.
Careful what you wish for - if Scotland's MPs evaporated tomorrow, the Conservative majority would automatically receive a net increase of 40...
What difference would that make?
Eh? Labour would be even further away from removing the Tory majority, let alone forming one of their own, obviously.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Honestly I don't think we did choose Starmer by accident.
A good chunk of the membership, around 60% by my count, were fed up with losing. In the remaining 40%, about 20% wanted some unity and the remaining 20% are the nutters.
Starmer would have won against Corbyn, polling showed that.
I voted Starmer because he was clearly the best and I could see a future PM in him. I always wanted Corbyn to be PM but even I must accept he never really looked like one from day one, same for Ed M.
I voted for Starmer, perhaps I didn't phrase that too well.
What I meant to say was that when we chose Starmer as leader we didn't know that we were going to be facing a prolonged economic and health crisis and that Starmer's character would play particularly well in those circumstances.
Fair point, makes sense.
I presumed we would face an economic crisis based on history but obviously not corona or anything like that.
Not Corbyn is powerful and he will have a lot of good will if he sorts out anti-Semitism.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
Of course there is. the Tories won a majority of 80 on a manifesto commitment of no indyref2 for a generation.
Tory MPs will not allow it therefore
It's not "if the SNP win" next May; it's if there's a pro-indyref2 majority of either seats or votes - i.e. for SNP plus Greens. Then the British government will have to (and should) allow a second indyref2. In those circumstances I cannot believe they would be so stupid as to try to stop one.
"England won't let us do stuff" only plays into the hands of the nats. The nats would absolutely LOVE it if Boris Johnson were to wave the Tory manifesto and say you can shove your request for a referendum. If he has got any sense he will make the position clear as above. If any diehards say "But the manifesto" he can just say they're interpreting it wrong. And then, guess what, there probably won't be a pro-indyref2 majority anyway.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
Do you reckon Labour can get 45% of the vote, is it physically possible? Blair got 43% in 1997.
They're more likely to win by being at 40% and the Tory vote dropping, IMHO
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
40% voted for Corbyn, remember! I want to know how/why that happened. Why did Labour gain 8% of the vote under a leader even then, most people didn't like. I need that explained.
Starmer can surely best that. His strategy must surely be 40% and hoping more Tories stay at home or vote Lib Dem. Piss off as few people as possible and ensure people don't come out to vote against you.
In GB terms 41% voted for Corbyn in 2017, but I agree that Starmer could better that.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
Do you reckon Labour can get 45% of the vote, is it physically possible? Blair got 43% in 1997.
They're more likely to win by being at 40% and the Tory vote dropping, IMHO
Not whilst embracing wokism, no.
There are a huge number of economically soft-left voters who have voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 because of issues of identity.
How do I know this? Because I have canvassed, literally, hundreds of them.
I'm wondering if the Unionists in Scotland may end up like the Federalists in Quebec? Needing to put aside Party loyalties, be pro more devolution and roll up into a single force, embracing all views from far left to right like the PLQ to get any sniff of power? This is my first ever post re Scotland as I know nowt about it. But I do know what happened in Canada.
Quite possibly, between the 2 independence referendums in Quebec from 1980 to 1995 the Partis Quebecois at provincial level and the Bloc Quebecois at Federal level never got less than 38% of the vote and twice got 49% of the vote
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
Do you reckon Labour can get 45% of the vote, is it physically possible? Blair got 43% in 1997.
They're more likely to win by being at 40% and the Tory vote dropping, IMHO
Not whilst embracing wokism, no.
There are a huge number of economically soft-left voters who have voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 because of issues of identity.
How do I know this? Because I have canvassed, literally, hundreds of them.
I am saying, do you think Labour can hit 45%, which is what they would need to beat the Tories on voteshare, if it stayed the same.
I think even with what you're saying to do - and I agree with it mostly - is impossible, when Blair only achieved 43%.
Irrelevant as the Tories won in 2019 on a manifesto of no indyref2 for a generation and Sturgeon has accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent, plus that is only excluding Don't Knows who will likely go No anyway
If a new Scottish Parliament votes for a new Sindy ref, there are two options for Westminster: 1) pass the neseecary legislation to authorise it. 2) refuse the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby pushing more people to the sense that London does not respect Scotland.
With 1) the referendum will happen sooner, but can be won. With 2) it will happen later, but will certainly be lost. Unionists should support the former.
No, referendums are unpredictable and the 2014 referendum was a 'once in a generation' vote in Salmond's words.
Regardless of what Holyrood votes for there will not be another indyref2 allowed under a Tory government. End of conversation.
Only a Labour government will allow indyref2
On this you are quite right. There is zero political gain for the Tories in allowing a 2nd indyref before 2024.
If someone can tell me what it is, rather than just blustering, I'd be fascinated.
The idea Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson!) will cave under some "moral pressure" is bizarre.
The SNP have to win big at Holyrood next year, and hope that Starmer wins in 2024, and is weak enough to accede.
That's it. That's the realpolitik. The Scots can jump up and down all they like.
Absolutely right.
Nats both need a majority at Holyrood next year and a Starmer led government at Westminster in 2024, there will not be any indyref2 in any other circumstance
Your hubris will be your downfall. Nothing is certain.
What is certain is the Tories have a majority of 80 and there can be no indyref2 without UK government consent
Incorrect. That is far from certain. You’re proving my point about your hubris.
This is not a game.
The Tories have a majority of 80, that is certain, Scots voted No to independence in 2014, that is certain, there can be no indyref without central government approval, as Madrid has proved in Catalonia.
Nope. Completely wrong as usual.
Do you think there will be an Indyref not granted by Westminster? I mean, its literally a reserved power...
The real danger is the SNP will call their own ballot if Westminster does not agree to indy2 and likely due to that refusal that ballot would provide a big majority in favour of leaving the union
But NO voters would boycott such a vote and deprive it of legitimacy.
I can't picture the nutters who refer to Nicola Sturgeon as "Brigadier Sturgeon" meekly standing in line to vote in a wildcat independence referendum.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
Do you reckon Labour can get 45% of the vote, is it physically possible? Blair got 43% in 1997.
They're more likely to win by being at 40% and the Tory vote dropping, IMHO
Not whilst embracing wokism, no.
There are a huge number of economically soft-left voters who have voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 because of issues of identity.
How do I know this? Because I have canvassed, literally, hundreds of them.
I am saying, do you think Labour can hit 45%, which is what they would need to beat the Tories on voteshare, if it stayed the same.
I think even with what you're saying to do - and I agree with it mostly - is impossible, when Blair only achieved 43%.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
Starmer shouldn't be worried about the Tory vote share.
He should be trying to convert 2017 and 2019 Tory (and BXP) voters to Labour.
I don't see how he can do this with an identitarian, culturally left wing position.
Such is the state of the culture wars that many will be disappointed the murders in Reading are not BLM linked.
Yes I can sense it.
Strange state of affairs.
Yeah the far right must be gutted. They won't be able to find an angle if it turns out to be just a common and garden terrorist incident ft a Libyan national
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
The Tories are boosted by the collapse of the Brexit Party and UKIP - and the fact that it is so early in the Parliament. Based on precedent, the odds are that the Tories will perform less well against Labour in 2024 than current polls are suggesting.Governments elected with big majorities underperformed at the following elections what the polls were implying at the six month point in the Parliaments of 2001 - 1997 - 1987 - 1966 - and 1959. Had there been such polls, it would likely also have been true of 1945 because early by elections showed pro-Government swings.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
Do you reckon Labour can get 45% of the vote, is it physically possible? Blair got 43% in 1997.
They're more likely to win by being at 40% and the Tory vote dropping, IMHO
Not whilst embracing wokism, no.
There are a huge number of economically soft-left voters who have voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 because of issues of identity.
How do I know this? Because I have canvassed, literally, hundreds of them.
I am saying, do you think Labour can hit 45%, which is what they would need to beat the Tories on voteshare, if it stayed the same.
I think even with what you're saying to do - and I agree with it mostly - is impossible, when Blair only achieved 43%.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
Starmer shouldn't be worried about the Tory vote share.
He should be trying to convert 2017 and 2019 Tory (and BXP) voters to Labour.
I don't see how he can do this with an identitarian, culturally left wing position.
The logical conclusion then is the Tory voteshare drops, in which case 40% is fine.
We're talking at cross purposes. I'm saying the Labour voteshare is pretty much at its ceiling (around 40%), I don't think it can go much higher. It's gone higher because Starmer is not useless.
I agree not being so woke is a way to win votes, I'm just saying that I don't believe it will gain many more votes than Labour will get if it polls 40%, that's all. The reason Labour lost in 2019 was because of Brexit and Corbyn primarily. Your issue is important but not the primary issue that caused such a loss. Not that it shouldn't be concentrated on.
I wonder why Trump can't get the crowd. His base isn't much smaller or less enthusiastic than 2016, and polls suggest they are skeptical about the risk or COVID. I wonder if this event shows that many of the people who publicly decry COVID as overblown are nonetheless making some adjustments to their personal behaviour even if the law doesn't require it?
As someone who thinks the risk broadly isn't overblown, I hope this is the case. It would suggest compliance with social distancing might be better than I fear among Trump supporters.
Kind of encouraging that although there are all these people on the internet taking up this pose of not being scared of covid19, they are in fact scared of covid19.
Starmer's doing extremely well but he isn't denting the Tory share much, 44% compared to 45% at the election.
Not yet but you'd be mad to conclude he hasn't been the most effective leader for a very long time.
He's reduced the gap from 20 points to about 4 in a month.
EdM managed polling leads. Heck, even Corbyn did....
Whilst all that is true I wouldn't mind betting that Tory HQ is far more worried about Starmer than they ever were about Corbyn or Miliband.
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Oh absolutely, but if I were in Labour HQ, I'd be somewhat concerned that people seem to like the chap but not want to vote for him.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
According to this poll 40% are prepared to vote for him - more than the 36% who supported Blair in 2005 or the 38%/39% who went for Wilson in 1974.
But crucially, fewer than are prepared to vote Tory.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
Do you reckon Labour can get 45% of the vote, is it physically possible? Blair got 43% in 1997.
They're more likely to win by being at 40% and the Tory vote dropping, IMHO
Not whilst embracing wokism, no.
There are a huge number of economically soft-left voters who have voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 because of issues of identity.
How do I know this? Because I have canvassed, literally, hundreds of them.
I am saying, do you think Labour can hit 45%, which is what they would need to beat the Tories on voteshare, if it stayed the same.
I think even with what you're saying to do - and I agree with it mostly - is impossible, when Blair only achieved 43%.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
Starmer shouldn't be worried about the Tory vote share.
He should be trying to convert 2017 and 2019 Tory (and BXP) voters to Labour.
I don't see how he can do this with an identitarian, culturally left wing position.
The logical conclusion then is the Tory voteshare drops, in which case 40% is fine.
We're talking at cross purposes. I'm saying the Labour voteshare is pretty much at its ceiling (around 40%), I don't think it can go much higher. It's gone higher because Starmer is not useless.
I agree not being so woke is a way to win votes, I'm just saying that I don't believe it will gain many more votes than Labour will get if it polls 40%, that's all. The reason Labour lost in 2019 was because of Brexit and Corbyn primarily. Your issue is important but not the primary issue that caused such a loss. Not that it shouldn't be concentrated on.
Given the size of the majority, I don't think relying on 2017 and 2019 Tories to not vote will cut it. Especially if they simply cannot associate with the culture of Labour, and especially amongst the older generation, increasingly unlikely to NOT vote....
Getting someone to switch their vote has a net positive impact of two votes - one for Labour, one fewer for Tories. Getting someone to sit at home is only net positive impact of one.
For the good of the country, and his own electoral prospects, Starmer needs to come out against wokism. He's made a good start, with patriotic tweets re VE day etc - but there is a long way to go
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
Of course there is. the Tories won a majority of 80 on a manifesto commitment of no indyref2 for a generation.
Tory MPs will not allow it therefore
It's not "if the SNP win" next May; it's if there's a pro-indyref2 majority of either seats or votes - i.e. for SNP plus Greens. Then the British government will have to (and should) allow a second indyref2. In those circumstances I cannot believe they would be so stupid as to try to stop one.
"England won't let us do stuff" only plays into the hands of the nats. The nats would absolutely LOVE it if Boris Johnson were to wave the Tory manifesto and say you can shove your request for a referendum. If he has got any sense he will make the position clear as above. If any diehards say "But the manifesto" he can just say they're interpreting it wrong. And then, guess what, there probably won't be a pro-indyref2 majority anyway.
But if turnout for Holyrood next May is only circa 50% , I am not persuaded the result would be seen as a mandate for another Referendum - even if the SNP manage a majority. A circa 75% turnout would be a different matter. Low turnout would suggest general apathy.
The PB Tories seem to occupy these positions simultaneously:
1. They don’t give a toss about Scotland 2. They believe an Indy ref would be lost 3. They oppose an Indy ref at all costs
Funny old world.
G’night.
I am English, with Welsh and Northern Irish ancestry. But Scotland still feels like home to me. One of my closest friends, and my Godson, live there.
I would be absolutely heartbroken to see the Union broken.
I don't think an Indy ref would be lost
But equally I don't think one is necessary. The majority of Scotland spoke, and that must be honoured.
By not letting them speak again ?
My wife's family are all Northern Scots and I have lived in Scotland, got married there, and love the Country and its people with a passion
Forget HYUFD nonsense, if the SNP win next May indy2 should be granted as there is no moral or democratic way of stopping it
However, my wife and I are unionists and for many reasons, not least economic and a hard border at Berwick, I simply do not believe in the end the Scots will vote to leave the union
Of course there is. the Tories won a majority of 80 on a manifesto commitment of no indyref2 for a generation.
Tory MPs will not allow it therefore
It's not "if the SNP win" next May; it's if there's a pro-indyref2 majority of either seats or votes - i.e. for SNP plus Greens. Then the British government will have to (and should) allow a second indyref2. In those circumstances I cannot believe they would be so stupid as to try to stop one.
"England won't let us do stuff" only plays into the hands of the nats. The nats would absolutely LOVE it if Boris Johnson were to wave the Tory manifesto and say you can shove your request for a referendum. If he has got any sense he will make the position clear as above. If any diehards say "But the manifesto" he can just say they're interpreting it wrong. And then, guess what, there probably won't be a pro-indyref2 majority anyway.
But if turnout for Holyrood next May is only circa 50% , I am not persuaded the result would be seen as a mandate for another Referendum - even if the SNP manage a majority. A circa 75% turnout would be a different matter. Low turnout would suggest general apathy.
For that reason it certainly wouldn't be a mandate for independence, and even if the SNP plus Greens were to score 55% I would still expect a No victory in a subsequent indyref rerun. But the Tories would be perceived as standing on dodgy ground if they in effect attempted to count Westminster votes for themselves as counterbalancing Holyrood votes for the SNP a year and half later.
The SCONs need to make their position clear during the Holyrood campaign.
This is incredible but how did all those teenagers manage to keep this a secret?
Hardly a new stunt either, campaigns have been pulling that one in the US for decades - nothing more embarrassing than a major address to a half-empty venue. Usually it's spotted well in advance though.
The problem for Trump seems to be that anyone halfway competent was long ago driven away.
Comments
He knows that breaking the Union makes his narrow path to power a whole lot harder.
Strange state of affairs.
There is nothing to fear from indy2 anyway as far as I am concerned
Corbyn never came close on approval either, he was never even net positive was he?
If Starmer were to slightly best Corbyn's 2017 performance, he'd almost certainly become PM.
The fact that you seem to think that the last referendum was 4 years ago is a pretty good sign that not for the first time you're pontificating on something you know hee haw about.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
But Westminster can of course ignore the SNP on this issue. It is literally not part of their constitutional remit.
Starmer's view is as follows (I think):
Scotland cannot be won back, so the best thing to do is to ensure wins in England and Wales and the only way to do that is to convince the public he won't be propped up by the SNP. If the SNP clean up in Scotland so be it, better those seats are SNP than Tory. He might win a few Scottish seats by not being Corbyn, who won 7 seats in 2017 somehow.
He must avoid the Ed M trap of being propped up by the SNP, that will kill his appeal.
Although it clearly spreads in the factory, that might not be the only issue.
I'd be very surprised to see Labour not win double digit numbers of seats in Scotland again soon.
Frankly, as a Unionist, I'm rooting for it.
Since 2007: LAB 0 CON 4
Big parties come through!
Your analysis is spot on.
Labour are second in loads of Scottish seats and they did win 7 in 2017, they can come back, I just don't think they need to come back to form a Government, that's all.
If Starmer came out strongly against Independence tomorrow and started fighting the SNP, his popularity would go up with the people he actually needs to win over. Of course Scottish Labour is useless.
Scot Lab are coming out against Indy Ref in the elections next year but Labour itself has not yet taken a very strong position.
They would be wise to take one soon. No to Independence, strong on the union, kill those ideas of SNP support dead early. That is an improvement on Ed M already.
https://twitter.com/MiaFarrow/status/1274466579615567872?s=20
Quite a career change from centre forward....
Public opinion does not equal whats in the papers.
These places need a serious looking into. For example, how much of our annual seasonal flu is spread like this?
Lucky number 7?
Tory MPs will not allow it therefore
Based on 2017 where Labour went in 20 points behind, 2019 where they went in many points behind, if they go in ahead, I suspect they'll walk to a minority Government. Labour saw polling gains in all of those elections, albeit still did horrifically badly.
It isnt the papers.
It is the focus groups.
And, as you'll have no doubt seen, non political wonks actually applaud Govts for u-turns.
Whereas Nazis don't get on at all.
Just go
The next few years are going to be very hard going and almost by accident Labour have chosen a leader who's demeanour is going to contrast very favourably with Johnson's lack of gravitas.
The turn around in leadership polling has been dramatic in the 2 moths since Starmer took over. If that continues I think it will eventually move the party figures as well. Clearly polls are pretty irrelevant so far out but it would churlish not to accept that Starmer has already put Labour right back in the game.
Suspect we'll see some hug a husky type stunts in the next couple of years. Will interesting to see if he takes to them like Cameron, or Brown....
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1274477058203230215?s=20
But to answer your question. Look at the polls leading up to 1987 and 1992!
GN all
A good chunk of the membership, around 60% by my count, were fed up with losing. In the remaining 40%, about 20% wanted some unity and the remaining 20% are the nutters.
Starmer would have won against Corbyn, polling showed that.
I voted Starmer because he was clearly the best and I could see a future PM in him. I always wanted Corbyn to be PM but even I must accept he never really looked like one from day one, same for Ed M.
#rishi 2039
The implication was that if EU membership was important then staying in the UK was the way to do it
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-eu-independence-referendum-scotland-join-queue-membership-apply-a7627201.html
Stay safe!
This is my first ever post re Scotland as I know nowt about it. But I do know what happened in Canada.
What I meant to say was that when we chose Starmer as leader we didn't know that we were going to be facing a prolonged economic and health crisis and that Starmer's character would play particularly well in those circumstances.
Starmer can surely best that. His strategy must surely be 40% and hoping more Tories stay at home or vote Lib Dem. Piss off as few people as possible and ensure people don't come out to vote against you.
I think it is as simple as this: Labour need to firmly demonstrate a desire to shed wokism to have a chance of taking power.
I presumed we would face an economic crisis based on history but obviously not corona or anything like that.
Not Corbyn is powerful and he will have a lot of good will if he sorts out anti-Semitism.
Also some actual unity in Labour is good to see.
"England won't let us do stuff" only plays into the hands of the nats. The nats would absolutely LOVE it if Boris Johnson were to wave the Tory manifesto and say you can shove your request for a referendum. If he has got any sense he will make the position clear as above. If any diehards say "But the manifesto" he can just say they're interpreting it wrong. And then, guess what, there probably won't be a pro-indyref2 majority anyway.
They're more likely to win by being at 40% and the Tory vote dropping, IMHO
There are a huge number of economically soft-left voters who have voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 because of issues of identity.
How do I know this? Because I have canvassed, literally, hundreds of them.
I think even with what you're saying to do - and I agree with it mostly - is impossible, when Blair only achieved 43%.
Starmer shouldn't be worried about the Tory vote share.
He should be trying to convert 2017 and 2019 Tory (and BXP) voters to Labour.
I don't see how he can do this with an identitarian, culturally left wing position.
We're talking at cross purposes. I'm saying the Labour voteshare is pretty much at its ceiling (around 40%), I don't think it can go much higher. It's gone higher because Starmer is not useless.
I agree not being so woke is a way to win votes, I'm just saying that I don't believe it will gain many more votes than Labour will get if it polls 40%, that's all. The reason Labour lost in 2019 was because of Brexit and Corbyn primarily. Your issue is important but not the primary issue that caused such a loss. Not that it shouldn't be concentrated on.
As someone who thinks the risk broadly isn't overblown, I hope this is the case. It would suggest compliance with social distancing might be better than I fear among Trump supporters.
Getting someone to switch their vote has a net positive impact of two votes - one for Labour, one fewer for Tories. Getting someone to sit at home is only net positive impact of one.
For the good of the country, and his own electoral prospects, Starmer needs to come out against wokism. He's made a good start, with patriotic tweets re VE day etc - but there is a long way to go
How many who have come into contact with the positive-testing staffers have gone into quarantine?
https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/status/1274484153963016193
The SCONs need to make their position clear during the Holyrood campaign.
The problem for Trump seems to be that anyone halfway competent was long ago driven away.