Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
Rather like Newham, there is one monolithic vote and the opposing vote is split multiple ways.
Let's say the SNP polls 50% - the problem is the "Unionist" vote is split between Conservative, Labour, LD, Greens and anyone else.
The only way to slow the SNP down would be for there to be a single Unionist slate with a single Unionist candidate in each seat but you and I both know that will never happen.
Tactical voting for Labour in urban Scotland the Tories and LDs in rural Scotland would help and a new Indy Party is standing on the list
Fckn hell, spam email from the Telegraph. Pass the sick bag, Doris.
'One year of Boris. And what a year it’s been…'
'You’ll enjoy our award-winning team’s summary of Boris’s remarkable twelve months in office. And, of course, take a look through the Prime Minister’s own brilliant articles from his former life as a Telegraph columnist.'
Goodness me. I don't begrduge the press outlets taking a clear side, but at least maintain enough professional distance that it doesn't seem like you had to type it out one handed.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
Rather like Newham, there is one monolithic vote and the opposing vote is split multiple ways.
Let's say the SNP polls 50% - the problem is the "Unionist" vote is split between Conservative, Labour, LD, Greens and anyone else.
The only way to slow the SNP down would be for there to be a single Unionist slate with a single Unionist candidate in each seat but you and I both know that will never happen.
The Greens are a pro indy party in Scotland (and unlike the Unionist parties, a separate entity from their English/Welsh brethren).
Although there were those on here last night who fell the need to earnestly explain to me how and why Johnson's letter box and bank robbers dog whistles are not racist but obvious satire.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
The choice of venues will be interesting. A parish hall in the woods of Aberdeenshire?
I'm sure that the boardrooms of various foodstuff companies will be available.
I'm sure Boris is a big fan of Tunnocks
Mackies, makers of health destroying ice cream and crisps also. Not so sure about Barr's Irn Bru, I think they're more decorous in their political allegiances.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Moving the goalposts again, in the best Unionist manner.
Personally I think there should be a referendum if those campaigning to have one win the election.
But to play devils advocate the magic number is 2 million.
In 2014 just over 2 million voted No. If in 2021 more than 2 million vote SNP or related new referendum parties the case for that overturning the 2014 precedence is unarguable. Fewer than 2 million and an argument can be made that No got more votes (devils advocate: I don't believe this)
Hmm. Different electorates, remember (at least at present). Also the trouble is that everyone knows that a decent chunk of ScoLab voters are pro-indy anyway so that logic doesn't work.
You also omitted the Greens - I'm quite sure that is a slip on your part and it would be a bit pedantic of me to bring it up, except that a surprising number of PBers equate the pro-independence MSPs with the SNP ones and completely forget the Green Party.
I didn't omit the Greens. I said "or related new referendum parties". The Greens are a new referendum party are they not so they would 100% count as pro referendum votes. How could they be otherwise?
As far as SLAB are concerned if their manifesto says no second referendum then any votes for them are votes against a referendum. Just as any votes for the SNP are votes for one even if some SNP voters don't want one and simply think the SNP are the best party for Scotland. You can't start trying to second guess votes.
For anyone who has gone to Spain (or booked) and is now upset that they have to quarantine or speak to their insurance company I have about as much sympathy as I do a Texas Hold Em player who shoves all in on a pair of fives, gets called and a higher card comes down so they lose.
I try to have sympathy for people in bad situations even if they're party to blame.
Indeed, I didn't say no sympathy. I have some sympathy but its very limited - they took a gamble, they didn't win. That's a shame. Hope they've had a good holiday and enjoy their quarantine as best as they can.
The "quarantine" is not policed, though, am I right?
Why does it need to be?
We don't live in an authoritarian Police State.
I'm not arguing about whether it should be or not. Just clarifying that my understanding was correct. Not following all the detail so much these days.
Ok, so essentially voluntary. Therefore you can have your holiday and come back and carry on as normal - and many will no doubt do this.
There should certainly be some social stigma attached to reckless behaviour as I'm sure a good socialist will agree.
Yes indeed. But if someone (who isn't an architect of the rules) breaks the rules in order to do what they judge best for themselves and their family, I'm not one to get too censorious about it.
Even if it means returning to work in a school or hospital and infecting others? Wow!
Talk to Johnson and Cummings not me.
As I thought - all about the politics.
I can't recall - Did you call for Cummings to go?
If you did, fair enough.
If you didn't - it's kettle pot and BLACK.
No - nor do I think people who break quarantine should resign or be sacked - I talked aboud some 'social stigma' which I do think should apply to anyone who breaks the rules regardless of the politics. Nice try though.
I agreed there should be some social stigma. But that I personally am not naturally one for joining in with it TOO ardently. Rock solid position.
You OTOH -
(i) Happy that the PM's Chief Advisor is not even reprimanded for blatant flouting of quarantine.
(ii) Animated and censorious about private citizens doing same.
Not tenable. Sorry, but it isn't. You need to adjust (ii) or retrospectively adjust (i).
Have a little think and get back to me at leisure.
Not much thinking needed. Where did I say he should 'not even be reprimanded' other than in your head?
It's funny that you are so animated about Mr Cummings. I get that - being smashed at the polls must still be very upsetting. And hilarious.
Ok, here's your chance. I'm a fair person -
Should Cummings have been reprimanded by Johnson for his breaking of the rules?
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer to not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer too not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
If you don't vote you don't get a say. If you do, you do.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
Rather like Newham, there is one monolithic vote and the opposing vote is split multiple ways.
Let's say the SNP polls 50% - the problem is the "Unionist" vote is split between Conservative, Labour, LD, Greens and anyone else.
The only way to slow the SNP down would be for there to be a single Unionist slate with a single Unionist candidate in each seat but you and I both know that will never happen.
If the SNP polled 50% on a high turnout, they’re clearly going to walk a referendum on independence anyway. If they poll less, given the nature of d’Hondt they would struggle to form a majority anyway.
However, that is to ignore the original point. The suggestion was a low turnout would undermine the legitimacy of an SNP win as a mandate for a referendum. My response is, quite simply, unless there is clear evidence of voter suppression or intimidation, that argument does not stack up. Those who fail to vote in a free and fair election can have no complaint if the outcome is not as they wish.*
Whatever your views of the SNP, and there are some really dodgy people coming to the surface now, Sturgeon is a democratic politician and has never shown anything less than a total commitment to democratic processes and the rule of law. I am in no doubt whatsoever that the election will be free and fair and the result must therefore be considered representative of Scottish opinion.
*(Yes, this does apply to me as an active abstainer last time. My problem was there was no electoral outcome I felt able to endorse.)
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
For anyone who has gone to Spain (or booked) and is now upset that they have to quarantine or speak to their insurance company I have about as much sympathy as I do a Texas Hold Em player who shoves all in on a pair of fives, gets called and a higher card comes down so they lose.
I try to have sympathy for people in bad situations even if they're party to blame.
Indeed, I didn't say no sympathy. I have some sympathy but its very limited - they took a gamble, they didn't win. That's a shame. Hope they've had a good holiday and enjoy their quarantine as best as they can.
The "quarantine" is not policed, though, am I right?
Why does it need to be?
We don't live in an authoritarian Police State.
I'm not arguing about whether it should be or not. Just clarifying that my understanding was correct. Not following all the detail so much these days.
Ok, so essentially voluntary. Therefore you can have your holiday and come back and carry on as normal - and many will no doubt do this.
There should certainly be some social stigma attached to reckless behaviour as I'm sure a good socialist will agree.
Yes indeed. But if someone (who isn't an architect of the rules) breaks the rules in order to do what they judge best for themselves and their family, I'm not one to get too censorious about it.
Even if it means returning to work in a school or hospital and infecting others? Wow!
Talk to Johnson and Cummings not me.
As I thought - all about the politics.
I can't recall - Did you call for Cummings to go?
If you did, fair enough.
If you didn't - it's kettle pot and BLACK.
No - nor do I think people who break quarantine should resign or be sacked - I talked aboud some 'social stigma' which I do think should apply to anyone who breaks the rules regardless of the politics. Nice try though.
I agreed there should be some social stigma. But that I personally am not naturally one for joining in with it TOO ardently. Rock solid position.
You OTOH -
(i) Happy that the PM's Chief Advisor is not even reprimanded for blatant flouting of quarantine.
(ii) Animated and censorious about private citizens doing same.
Not tenable. Sorry, but it isn't. You need to adjust (ii) or retrospectively adjust (i).
Have a little think and get back to me at leisure.
Not much thinking needed. Where did I say he should 'not even be reprimanded' other than in your head?
It's funny that you are so animated about Mr Cummings. I get that - being smashed at the polls must still be very upsetting. And hilarious.
Ok, here's your chance. I'm a fair person -
Should Cummings have been reprimanded by Johnson for his breaking of the rules?
Of course he should and probably was for all I know. The left's obsession with the man remains a great source of amusement.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer too not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
If you don't vote you don't get a say. If you do, you do.
In my more sarcastic moments, I advocate RON Rules -
- All registered voters are assumed to have voted for Re-Open Nominations (RON), unless they have voted. - If RON wins, revote. - All previous candidates are ineligible for the re-election.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer to not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
No - I believe Westminster will be far better placed to decline a second Referendum request from Holyrood if far fewer people vote SNP next May than supported Yes in 2014. A low turnout - below Westminster elections - would also be evidence that voters see Holyrood as a secondary lower tier authority - a regional authority with a standing somewhat higher than local authorities.
Sounds good. I said all along the Begum etc were traitors, they should be able to be prosecuted as such.
Devil in the detail, err on the side of caution till we see that I suspect.
I've already seen some legal aquaintances damning the concept of treason being brought back.
Apparently, abolishing it was a human rights issue.
I suspect there are many offences which could cover the areas apparently not covered which would not involve the word treason, but there is a cache to such a term. I'm not instinctively opposed, but it would need to be damn carefully worded and narrow in scope.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
The 1979 experience of the SNP combining with the Tories to bring down a Labour Government did not turn out well for them - ie the party lost 9 out of its 11 seats at the subsequent GE. I am not sure they would wish to repeat that.
Sounds good. I said all along the Begum etc were traitors, they should be able to be prosecuted as such.
Devil in the detail, err on the side of caution till we see that I suspect.
I've already seen some legal aquaintances damning the concept of treason being brought back.
Apparently, abolishing it was a human rights issue.
I suspect there are many offences which could cover the areas apparently not covered which would not involve the word treason, but there is a cache to such a term. I'm not instinctively opposed, but it would need to be damn carefully worded and narrow in scope.
If I understand correctly, they are arguing from the point of view of the "separate communities" version of Multiculturalism.
This holds that communities have the right not to integrate and to maintain their nationalistic* links to other groups/societies/countries.
Demanding their allegiance to a single identity is an attack on their right to multiple nationalistic identities.
The suggestion that they can always resign UK nationality to avoid such an issue is racist, in that view.
*In the Orwell sense - might be political, religious, ethnic nationalism
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I'm not entirely convinced Labour would choose 'we must given into anything Sturgeon demands' over a fresh election. And I certainly imagine Ian Murray would be arguing for the latter. It's kind of moot anyway if Labour can win 300+ seats, though (which is probably what they'd need to be able to govern without the SNP). Considering Cameron won additional 100 seats in England and Wales in 2010, I don't think it's impossible SKS could do the same.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer too not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
If you don't vote you don't get a say. If you do, you do.
In my more sarcastic moments, I advocate RON Rules -
- All registered voters are assumed to have voted for Re-Open Nominations (RON), unless they have voted. - If RON wins, revote. - All previous candidates are ineligible for the re-election.
I like the idea of RON being an automatic option on the ballot paper but the same principle should apply. Those who don't vote have not voted for RON, they have simply said they don't care.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
The 1979 experience of the SNP combining with the Tories to bring down a Labour Government did not turn out well for them - ie the party lost 9 out of its 11 seats at the subsequent GE. I am not sure they would wish to repeat that.
You were punting that line when the nasty SNP bullied Lab into supporting BJ's general election. Weren't you suggesting Scottish voters would punish the SNP for this? How did that turn out?
This trope exists pretty much exclusively in the folk memories of old Labourites.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer too not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
If you don't vote you don't get a say. If you do, you do.
In my more sarcastic moments, I advocate RON Rules -
- All registered voters are assumed to have voted for Re-Open Nominations (RON), unless they have voted. - If RON wins, revote. - All previous candidates are ineligible for the re-election.
Great idea. I would have voted for that in a heartbeat.
So long as they are fit Broad and Anderson have to be included in future series. It's all very well worrying about the future when they are not there and wanting to bed in other players, but in England at least they are as good as they ever have been and you go with your best team.
Broad has certainly returned to form after being dropped a couple of years ago.
Which suggests that he had been coasting along in the years prior to being dropped.
For anyone who has gone to Spain (or booked) and is now upset that they have to quarantine or speak to their insurance company I have about as much sympathy as I do a Texas Hold Em player who shoves all in on a pair of fives, gets called and a higher card comes down so they lose.
I try to have sympathy for people in bad situations even if they're party to blame.
Indeed, I didn't say no sympathy. I have some sympathy but its very limited - they took a gamble, they didn't win. That's a shame. Hope they've had a good holiday and enjoy their quarantine as best as they can.
The "quarantine" is not policed, though, am I right?
Why does it need to be?
We don't live in an authoritarian Police State.
I'm not arguing about whether it should be or not. Just clarifying that my understanding was correct. Not following all the detail so much these days.
Ok, so essentially voluntary. Therefore you can have your holiday and come back and carry on as normal - and many will no doubt do this.
There should certainly be some social stigma attached to reckless behaviour as I'm sure a good socialist will agree.
Yes indeed. But if someone (who isn't an architect of the rules) breaks the rules in order to do what they judge best for themselves and their family, I'm not one to get too censorious about it.
Even if it means returning to work in a school or hospital and infecting others? Wow!
Talk to Johnson and Cummings not me.
As I thought - all about the politics.
I can't recall - Did you call for Cummings to go?
If you did, fair enough.
If you didn't - it's kettle pot and BLACK.
No - nor do I think people who break quarantine should resign or be sacked - I talked aboud some 'social stigma' which I do think should apply to anyone who breaks the rules regardless of the politics. Nice try though.
I agreed there should be some social stigma. But that I personally am not naturally one for joining in with it TOO ardently. Rock solid position.
You OTOH -
(i) Happy that the PM's Chief Advisor is not even reprimanded for blatant flouting of quarantine.
(ii) Animated and censorious about private citizens doing same.
Not tenable. Sorry, but it isn't. You need to adjust (ii) or retrospectively adjust (i).
Have a little think and get back to me at leisure.
Not much thinking needed. Where did I say he should 'not even be reprimanded' other than in your head?
It's funny that you are so animated about Mr Cummings. I get that - being smashed at the polls must still be very upsetting. And hilarious.
Ok, here's your chance. I'm a fair person -
Should Cummings have been reprimanded by Johnson for his breaking of the rules?
Of course he should and probably was for all I know. The left's obsession with the man remains a great source of amusement.
Ok thanks. But let's put your amusement to one side for a second and nail this.
First to clear up on me. No, I can't stand him. But I neither wanted him to go over that, nor did I expect him to. What I did want and expect, though, was a PUBLIC reprimand from Johnson. This imo was crucial to show the public that he took the matter seriously and it was not a "one rule for the little people, one for us" situation.
Instead we got "He acted in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
So weak and disappointing.
Now then, million dollar question upon which something worth more than a million dollars rides (your integrity) -
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer too not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
If you don't vote you don't get a say. If you do, you do.
In my more sarcastic moments, I advocate RON Rules -
- All registered voters are assumed to have voted for Re-Open Nominations (RON), unless they have voted. - If RON wins, revote. - All previous candidates are ineligible for the re-election.
I like the idea of RON being an automatic option on the ballot paper but the same principle should apply. Those who don't vote have not voted for RON, they have simply said they don't care.
I just like the idea that being a coach potato can win an election - Apathy! Rules! OK!
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer too not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
If you don't vote you don't get a say. If you do, you do.
In my more sarcastic moments, I advocate RON Rules -
- All registered voters are assumed to have voted for Re-Open Nominations (RON), unless they have voted. - If RON wins, revote. - All previous candidates are ineligible for the re-election.
I like the idea of RON being an automatic option on the ballot paper but the same principle should apply. Those who don't vote have not voted for RON, they have simply said they don't care.
I just like the idea that being a coach potato can win an election - Apathy! Rules! OK!
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
The 1979 experience of the SNP combining with the Tories to bring down a Labour Government did not turn out well for them - ie the party lost 9 out of its 11 seats at the subsequent GE. I am not sure they would wish to repeat that.
This rather misses the point that the SNP MPs are perfectly at liberty to vote down any Government that is presented to them - thus, if neither Labour nor the Tories can achieve a majority without them, they can attempt to force another General Election and paralyse the state.
Should the SNP refuse to play ball then the only means to form a Government and avoid a dissolution would be for one of the large parties to enable its rival, either by forming a grand coalition, or under some more informal agreement, or by providing at least tacit backing through abstention in a vote of confidence.
The SNP cannot possibly lose under any of these scenarios. If it succeeds in forcing Labour to yield to a second referendum, good. If it compels Westminster to keep having elections over and over again until somebody gives in to it, also good. If Labour and the Tories end up working together in order to frustrate the second referendum, then the entire British political establishment has engaged in a massive conspiracy to imprison Scotland and Labour are also revealed to be nothing but pink Tories, so good again. The Unionist position is quite hopeless.
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Speaking as somebody who is no friend of the SNP and finds increasing - disturbing - similarities to Farage in some of their leaders, my answer to that would be that if Unionists don’t want an SNP majority at Holyrood, they should get out and vote for fecking unionist parties.
If they fail to vote, they cannot complain if their views are not represented.
Given the issues riding on next year, turnout should skyrocket.
But if turnout is muted at circa 50% there is little moral authority to override the result of the 2014 Referendum which saw turnout at circa 85%. A 70% turnout would be a different matter.
Moral authority is for crap. All you can reliably say when few people turnout is they didn't care enough to profess their view, you cannot assume support for an option or even necessarily for the status quo unfortunately. It'd be easier that way, but the moral authority of the parliament is the same however many voted, so long as the process is not artificially restricted.
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer too not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
If you don't vote you don't get a say. If you do, you do.
In my more sarcastic moments, I advocate RON Rules -
- All registered voters are assumed to have voted for Re-Open Nominations (RON), unless they have voted. - If RON wins, revote. - All previous candidates are ineligible for the re-election.
Great idea. I would have voted for that in a heartbeat.
I am thinking of starting The Grand Old Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party of 1911, essentially.
Drink like Asquith, Party like Lloyd George, pensions and Dreadnoughts like Churchill.
For anyone who has gone to Spain (or booked) and is now upset that they have to quarantine or speak to their insurance company I have about as much sympathy as I do a Texas Hold Em player who shoves all in on a pair of fives, gets called and a higher card comes down so they lose.
I try to have sympathy for people in bad situations even if they're party to blame.
Indeed, I didn't say no sympathy. I have some sympathy but its very limited - they took a gamble, they didn't win. That's a shame. Hope they've had a good holiday and enjoy their quarantine as best as they can.
The "quarantine" is not policed, though, am I right?
Why does it need to be?
We don't live in an authoritarian Police State.
I'm not arguing about whether it should be or not. Just clarifying that my understanding was correct. Not following all the detail so much these days.
Ok, so essentially voluntary. Therefore you can have your holiday and come back and carry on as normal - and many will no doubt do this.
There should certainly be some social stigma attached to reckless behaviour as I'm sure a good socialist will agree.
Yes indeed. But if someone (who isn't an architect of the rules) breaks the rules in order to do what they judge best for themselves and their family, I'm not one to get too censorious about it.
Even if it means returning to work in a school or hospital and infecting others? Wow!
Talk to Johnson and Cummings not me.
As I thought - all about the politics.
I can't recall - Did you call for Cummings to go?
If you did, fair enough.
If you didn't - it's kettle pot and BLACK.
No - nor do I think people who break quarantine should resign or be sacked - I talked aboud some 'social stigma' which I do think should apply to anyone who breaks the rules regardless of the politics. Nice try though.
I agreed there should be some social stigma. But that I personally am not naturally one for joining in with it TOO ardently. Rock solid position.
You OTOH -
(i) Happy that the PM's Chief Advisor is not even reprimanded for blatant flouting of quarantine.
(ii) Animated and censorious about private citizens doing same.
Not tenable. Sorry, but it isn't. You need to adjust (ii) or retrospectively adjust (i).
Have a little think and get back to me at leisure.
Not much thinking needed. Where did I say he should 'not even be reprimanded' other than in your head?
It's funny that you are so animated about Mr Cummings. I get that - being smashed at the polls must still be very upsetting. And hilarious.
Ok, here's your chance. I'm a fair person -
Should Cummings have been reprimanded by Johnson for his breaking of the rules?
Of course he should and probably was for all I know. The left's obsession with the man remains a great source of amusement.
Ok thanks. But let's put your amusement to one side for a second and nail this.
First to clear up on me. No, I can't stand him. But I neither wanted him to go over that, nor did I expect him to. What I did want and expect, though, was a PUBLIC reprimand from Johnson. This imo was crucial to show the public that he took the matter seriously and it was not a "one rule for the little people, one for us" situation.
Instead we got "He acted in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
So weak and disappointing.
Now then, million dollar question upon which something worth more than a million dollars rides (your integrity) -
Were YOU disappointed in that too?
Ha ha ha. I'm still waiting for your apology for putting words in my mouth. My integrity does not ride on the judgement of anyone who could vote for a party riddled with anti-semitism. Bye.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I'm not entirely convinced Labour would choose 'we must given into anything Sturgeon demands' over a fresh election. And I certainly imagine Ian Murray would be arguing for the latter. It's kind of moot anyway if Labour can win 300+ seats, though (which is probably what they'd need to be able to govern without the SNP). Considering Cameron won additional 100 seats in England and Wales in 2010, I don't think it's impossible SKS could do the same.
If the Tories follow through with their commitment to repeal or at least amend the FTPA, Starmer will almost certainly be in a position to force a fresh election if the SNP MPs effectively frustrate his programme for Government. Doing so will therefore be a very high risk tactic for the SNP and could very easily turn out to be an own goal. Starmer might welcome that, as it is the one realistic scenario that could lead to a significant Labour resurgence in Scotland.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
Fckn hell, spam email from the Telegraph. Pass the sick bag, Doris.
'One year of Boris. And what a year it’s been…'
'You’ll enjoy our award-winning team’s summary of Boris’s remarkable twelve months in office. And, of course, take a look through the Prime Minister’s own brilliant articles from his former life as a Telegraph columnist.'
It would not completely astonish me if they began touting him as the next Bond.
Went out for food and drinks last night in Newcastle. The experience was pretty good, and I really hope table service at bars stays, it’s fantastic.
Regardless, we are nowhere near back to normal. I’d say at least 50% of bars and restaurants were still not open. No wonder there’s still so many people on furlough.
It cant simply be a “unable to comply with H&S legislation” reason as some much smaller bars and restaurants were open. Dare I say that some owners are happy to sit closed with their staff on furlough for as long as possible?
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
The 1979 experience of the SNP combining with the Tories to bring down a Labour Government did not turn out well for them - ie the party lost 9 out of its 11 seats at the subsequent GE. I am not sure they would wish to repeat that.
This rather misses the point that the SNP MPs are perfectly at liberty to vote down any Government that is presented to them - thus, if neither Labour nor the Tories can achieve a majority without them, they can attempt to force another General Election and paralyse the state.
Should the SNP refuse to play ball then the only means to form a Government and avoid a dissolution would be for one of the large parties to enable its rival, either by forming a grand coalition, or under some more informal agreement, or by providing at least tacit backing through abstention in a vote of confidence.
The SNP cannot possibly lose under any of these scenarios. If it succeeds in forcing Labour to yield to a second referendum, good. If it compels Westminster to keep having elections over and over again until somebody gives in to it, also good. If Labour and the Tories end up working together in order to frustrate the second referendum, then the entire British political establishment has engaged in a massive conspiracy to imprison Scotland and Labour are also revealed to be nothing but pink Tories, so good again. The Unionist position is quite hopeless.
The SNP lost a great deal by voting down the Callaghan Government in March 1979. Would they really be inclined to risk being punished again for such behaviour?
Went out for food and drinks last night in Newcastle. The experience was pretty good, and I really hope table service at bars stays, it’s fantastic.
Regardless, we are nowhere near back to normal. I’d say at least 50% of bars and restaurants were still not open. No wonder there’s still so many people on furlough.
It cant simply be a “unable to comply with H&S legislation” reason as some much smaller bars and restaurants were open. Dare I say that some owners are happy to sit closed with their staff on furlough for as long as possible?
I wouldn't be surprised if 50% capacity or less is worse than closed, given the need to have staff in, utilities, etc.
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
They're all smaller cities with high population density. The bigger cities had their outbreaks first and its easier to control with lower population density.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
But they would need to vote him in before he came into office. And that would mean voting for an agreed Queen’s Speech.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
It is not, I think a religious issue - more of an integration issue. In the sense of being integrated into the societal systems - police, health etc etc.
Consider this - factories were running as sweat shops in Leicester - illegal conditions, below minimum wage. Why was this happening? All it should take is a single phone call.
It is my opinion that a combination of community isolation plus a form of racism in officialdom is the key to this.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
Would be amusing to see SNP *progressives* such as Mhari Black trying to justify to their constituents why they keep joining the Tories in the same division lobby and giggling away as left wing legislation which would have helped Scotland is voted down.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
But they would need to vote him in before he came into office. And that would mean voting for an agreed Queen’s Speech.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
They could vote through one Queen's Speech but not the Budget or anything else.
And as for the final question the answer is very easy. If they win the election next year but are stymied then they will stoke for all they are worth the idea that Scotland is being ignored and trodden over. If Starmer also refusing to agree the referendum then they will say that they offered support to Starmer, he just had to respect Scotland's choices - and that Starmer is refusing to respect Scotland. If that happens the SNPs voters will not view Starmer as that much better than the Tories.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
Would be amusing to see SNP *progressives* such as Mhari Black trying to justify to their constituents why they keep joining the Tories in the same division lobby and giggling away as left wing legislation which would have helped Scotland is voted down.
Be very easy for me to see. They will just keep saying that they need Scotland's voice to be respected.
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
@Foxy was indeed suggesting recently that quite a lot of white as well as Asian families at the epicentre of the Leicester outbreak were being affected, and that this might be down to large-ish families crammed into old fashioned terraces of little two up, two down houses.
It's therefore entirely possible that, whilst it looks like these outbreaks might be something to do with Muslim communities disregarding the regulations to deal with Covid or failing to understand them, the outbreak pattern is in fact down to large and/or multi-generational families living in small houses within a confined area - conditions that might disproportionately apply to Muslim communities - perhaps compounded by a greater susceptibility to the virus that has already been suggested by the hospitalisation and mortality statistics for non-white people.
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
It is not, I think a religious issue - more of an integration issue. In the sense of being integrated into the societal systems - police, health etc etc.
Consider this - factories were running as sweat shops in Leicester - illegal conditions, below minimum wage. Why was this happening? All it should take is a single phone call.
It is my opinion that a combination of community isolation plus a form of racism in officialdom is the key to this.
By racism do you mean the fear of being called racist?
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Yup Boris can and will deny them.
He ran in the UK election on a “you’ve had your once in a generation vote just over 5 years ago, no referendum in this Parliament”. He won, and there’s no reason to go back on that:-
SNP voters are hardly likely Tory converts in anything other than tiny numbers. It shores up the Tory vote as “the reliable unionists”, compared to SLab being tempted to play footsie.
If he wins again UK wide and gets 6-10 Scottish seats, job done for another five years. Sturgeon’s not daft enough to declare UDI and see recognition from Xi, Putin, and Venezuela as her reward, while Madrid quietly goes nuts and kills any European option stone dead.
Meanwhile Starmer will have to say something about what he’d do if he wins an overall majority, or needs SNP support. Saying he supports a referendum means out come the Sturgeon posters with Starmer tucked in her handbag ( see Ed M 2015). If he says he’s dead against, SLab MP’s in 2024 can probably all go to Westminster on the same motorbike, and he has to somehow overcome a majority in England against him of 150 plus with a bit of Welsh help, and that’s not the given it was, and Wales gets 8 less seats in all likelihood too.
From Boris’ perspective even if Starmer “loses” Scotland for the union, it just means the bar to a Tory majority in the 93% of the country that’s left has been pretty permanently lowered by about 50/55 seats. Not too bad a consolation.
Went out for food and drinks last night in Newcastle. The experience was pretty good, and I really hope table service at bars stays, it’s fantastic.
Regardless, we are nowhere near back to normal. I’d say at least 50% of bars and restaurants were still not open. No wonder there’s still so many people on furlough.
It cant simply be a “unable to comply with H&S legislation” reason as some much smaller bars and restaurants were open. Dare I say that some owners are happy to sit closed with their staff on furlough for as long as possible?
I think this is bound to be the case for many. Especially those that judge they don't have a long term future.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
But they would need to vote him in before he came into office. And that would mean voting for an agreed Queen’s Speech.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
Surely voting to install a new PM will not arise if the FTPA is repealed - as promised?
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
It is not, I think a religious issue - more of an integration issue. In the sense of being integrated into the societal systems - police, health etc etc.
Consider this - factories were running as sweat shops in Leicester - illegal conditions, below minimum wage. Why was this happening? All it should take is a single phone call.
It is my opinion that a combination of community isolation plus a form of racism in officialdom is the key to this.
By racism do you mean the fear of being called racist?
Not so much....
From my encounters with officialdom it is a combination of
- "It'll cause trouble, political trouble" - "Policy is to turn a blind eye" - "They are like that" racism - see E. Said - "They are doing it to their own" racism
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
But they would need to vote him in before he came into office. And that would mean voting for an agreed Queen’s Speech.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
Surely voting to install a new PM will not arise if the FTPA is repealed - as promised?
How do you suppose it will be done? By a game of tiddly winks?
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
@Foxy was indeed suggesting recently that quite a lot of white as well as Asian families at the epicentre of the Leicester outbreak were being affected, and that this might be down to large-ish families crammed into old fashioned terraces of little two up, two down houses.
It's therefore entirely possible that, whilst it looks like these outbreaks might be something to do with Muslim communities disregarding the regulations to deal with Covid or failing to understand them, the outbreak pattern is in fact down to large and/or multi-generational families living in small houses within a confined area - conditions that might disproportionately apply to Muslim communities - perhaps compounded by a greater susceptibility to the virus that has already been suggested by the hospitalisation and mortality statistics for non-white people.
Or, just possibly, scum bag landlords stuffing people into illegally modified properties.
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
@Foxy was indeed suggesting recently that quite a lot of white as well as Asian families at the epicentre of the Leicester outbreak were being affected, and that this might be down to large-ish families crammed into old fashioned terraces of little two up, two down houses.
It's therefore entirely possible that, whilst it looks like these outbreaks might be something to do with Muslim communities disregarding the regulations to deal with Covid or failing to understand them, the outbreak pattern is in fact down to large and/or multi-generational families living in small houses within a confined area - conditions that might disproportionately apply to Muslim communities - perhaps compounded by a greater susceptibility to the virus that has already been suggested by the hospitalisation and mortality statistics for non-white people.
I wonder how many of the white inhabitants of those areas are themselves poor immigrants.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
But they would need to vote him in before he came into office. And that would mean voting for an agreed Queen’s Speech.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
Surely voting to install a new PM will not arise if the FTPA is repealed - as promised?
How do you suppose it will be done? By a game of tiddly winks?
We had no such votes to install Cameron in 2010 or Brown in 2007. Surely in the event of a Hung Parliament we would be back to the scenarios of 2010 and post Feb 1974 - assuming the FTPA has gone?
The most remarkable market is Betfair's gender of the next president (1.03 or 1/33 male; 25/1 female). Now of course the price will be hammered by Betfair's commission so this is not a tip, but it does remind us that nothing is certain this year.
Yes, if the election is prevented by COVID, President Pelosi is apparently a valid constitutional possibility.
For anyone who has gone to Spain (or booked) and is now upset that they have to quarantine or speak to their insurance company I have about as much sympathy as I do a Texas Hold Em player who shoves all in on a pair of fives, gets called and a higher card comes down so they lose.
I try to have sympathy for people in bad situations even if they're party to blame.
Indeed, I didn't say no sympathy. I have some sympathy but its very limited - they took a gamble, they didn't win. That's a shame. Hope they've had a good holiday and enjoy their quarantine as best as they can.
The "quarantine" is not policed, though, am I right?
Why does it need to be?
We don't live in an authoritarian Police State.
I'm not arguing about whether it should be or not. Just clarifying that my understanding was correct. Not following all the detail so much these days.
Ok, so essentially voluntary. Therefore you can have your holiday and come back and carry on as normal - and many will no doubt do this.
There should certainly be some social stigma attached to reckless behaviour as I'm sure a good socialist will agree.
Yes indeed. But if someone (who isn't an architect of the rules) breaks the rules in order to do what they judge best for themselves and their family, I'm not one to get too censorious about it.
Even if it means returning to work in a school or hospital and infecting others? Wow!
Talk to Johnson and Cummings not me.
As I thought - all about the politics.
I can't recall - Did you call for Cummings to go?
If you did, fair enough.
If you didn't - it's kettle pot and BLACK.
No - nor do I think people who break quarantine should resign or be sacked - I talked aboud some 'social stigma' which I do think should apply to anyone who breaks the rules regardless of the politics. Nice try though.
I agreed there should be some social stigma. But that I personally am not naturally one for joining in with it TOO ardently. Rock solid position.
You OTOH -
(i) Happy that the PM's Chief Advisor is not even reprimanded for blatant flouting of quarantine.
(ii) Animated and censorious about private citizens doing same.
Not tenable. Sorry, but it isn't. You need to adjust (ii) or retrospectively adjust (i).
Have a little think and get back to me at leisure.
Not much thinking needed. Where did I say he should 'not even be reprimanded' other than in your head?
It's funny that you are so animated about Mr Cummings. I get that - being smashed at the polls must still be very upsetting. And hilarious.
Ok, here's your chance. I'm a fair person -
Should Cummings have been reprimanded by Johnson for his breaking of the rules?
Of course he should and probably was for all I know. The left's obsession with the man remains a great source of amusement.
Ok thanks. But let's put your amusement to one side for a second and nail this.
First to clear up on me. No, I can't stand him. But I neither wanted him to go over that, nor did I expect him to. What I did want and expect, though, was a PUBLIC reprimand from Johnson. This imo was crucial to show the public that he took the matter seriously and it was not a "one rule for the little people, one for us" situation.
Instead we got "He acted in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
So weak and disappointing.
Now then, million dollar question upon which something worth more than a million dollars rides (your integrity) -
Were YOU disappointed in that too?
Ha ha ha. I'm still waiting for your apology for putting words in my mouth. My integrity does not ride on the judgement of anyone who could vote for a party riddled with anti-semitism. Bye.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth, Felix.
But the good news is I am now seeking to hear them unfiltered. So one final chance -
Were you - as I was - rather disappointed in Johnson's public response to the breaking of quarantine rules by his Chief Political Advisor, Dominic Cummings?
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
But they would need to vote him in before he came into office. And that would mean voting for an agreed Queen’s Speech.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
Surely voting to install a new PM will not arise if the FTPA is repealed - as promised?
How do you suppose it will be done? By a game of tiddly winks?
We had no such votes to install Cameron in 2010 or Brown in 2007. Surely in the event of a Hung Parliament we would be back to the scenarios of 2010 and post Feb 1974 - assuming the FTPA has gone?
The traditional process, which given your extensive knowledge of history and our constitution I am sure you are aware of, is for a PM to resign when it is clear they cannot get a Queen’s Speech through. Otherwise they could take the Baldwin 1923 option of meeting parliament and being voted down.
Which option would Johnson take?
If the SNP hold the balance of power he will want to cause maximum discomfort for them and Labour. He will stay in office.
@Fysics_Teacher - just dawned on me I omitted to mention water for the stew, when adding the veg in the recipe I gave. Pretty obvious I hope, but braising was not what I meant!
Report today that Boris is to hold regular cabinet meetings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has already obtained cabinet rooms in Edinburgh
Well thats an efficient use of taxpayers money, not to mention an efficient way to maximise covid spread! I thought we were supposed to be limiting travel?
And why should the UK government avoid meeting in the devolved nations.
It seems sensible and I would expect a Starmer government to follow the practice
And as far as I am aware there are no internal UK travel restrictions
They will probably be flying 50 odd people including assistants on completely unnecessary journeys at the expense of the taxpayer, the environment and spreading covid around. Politicians are known super spreaders as they meet so many people, and will be expected to do so in Scotland, Wales and Ni when they get there. The only saving grace is many of them have had it already so should be lower risk at least.
It is possibly the most absurd policy suggestion I have heard at a time when the world is rightly moving to online meetings instead of all flying to a certain location. Flying all the people for a meeting from a town they are already in to somewhere else? Really?
As far as I am aware last time they travelled by train. No need to fly
We have the technology to make such travel unnecessary. As Mr Above points out. What was that about gesture politics?
The case has to be made for the union and meeting in the devolved nations is entirely sensible.
With respect Mr G, no it isn't. Inviting the relevant First Ministers to the meeting would be a better bet! By Zoom or perhaps a more secure equivalent.
BJ and his satraps making the case for the Union to each other in away day cabinet sessions is a metaphor for something. Not only Corbynites who love an echo chamber it would seem.
You may just be underestimating the strength of the union
To be fair I think many English voters would vote given the chance to let Scotland leave the Union. I would for one , if Scotland wants another referendum and the Scottish people give the SNP a majority they should have that chance. Leaving the EU against Scotlands wishes has changed the dynamic.
Not if turnout at next year's Holyrood elections is barely 50%.
Moving the goalposts again, in the best Unionist manner.
Personally I think there should be a referendum if those campaigning to have one win the election.
But to play devils advocate the magic number is 2 million.
In 2014 just over 2 million voted No. If in 2021 more than 2 million vote SNP or related new referendum parties the case for that overturning the 2014 precedence is unarguable. Fewer than 2 million and an argument can be made that No got more votes (devils advocate: I don't believe this)
Hmm. Different electorates, remember (at least at present). Also the trouble is that everyone knows that a decent chunk of ScoLab voters are pro-indy anyway so that logic doesn't work.
You also omitted the Greens - I'm quite sure that is a slip on your part and it would be a bit pedantic of me to bring it up, except that a surprising number of PBers equate the pro-independence MSPs with the SNP ones and completely forget the Green Party.
I didn't omit the Greens. I said "or related new referendum parties". The Greens are a new referendum party are they not so they would 100% count as pro referendum votes. How could they be otherwise?
As far as SLAB are concerned if their manifesto says no second referendum then any votes for them are votes against a referendum. Just as any votes for the SNP are votes for one even if some SNP voters don't want one and simply think the SNP are the best party for Scotland. You can't start trying to second guess votes.
Ah - I read your post as "new parties wanting a referendum" not "new-referendum parties". Thanks for the clarification.
But it's well known that yes/no split does not lie across the party lines anyway, so your analysis would be incredible. The PB Britnats keep telling me that lots of SNP voters don't weant indy, after all.
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
@Foxy was indeed suggesting recently that quite a lot of white as well as Asian families at the epicentre of the Leicester outbreak were being affected, and that this might be down to large-ish families crammed into old fashioned terraces of little two up, two down houses.
It's therefore entirely possible that, whilst it looks like these outbreaks might be something to do with Muslim communities disregarding the regulations to deal with Covid or failing to understand them, the outbreak pattern is in fact down to large and/or multi-generational families living in small houses within a confined area - conditions that might disproportionately apply to Muslim communities - perhaps compounded by a greater susceptibility to the virus that has already been suggested by the hospitalisation and mortality statistics for non-white people.
Or, just possibly, scum bag landlords stuffing people into illegally modified properties.
I wonder how many of the white inhabitants of those areas are themselves poor immigrants.
Also possible.
Hopefully the authorities will be able to disentangle causation and mere coincidence in places like Leicester, Blackburn and Luton. A better understanding might provide value information about where future moles may need whacking, and how to go about doing that quickly and effectively.
@Fysics_Teacher - just dawned on me I omitted to mention water for the stew, when adding the veg in the recipe I gave. Pretty obvious I hope, but braising was not what I meant!
Thanks! Water, or is stock better?
Never bother with stock let alone gravy browning. Try it without and then modify to your taste, I'd say.
For anyone who has gone to Spain (or booked) and is now upset that they have to quarantine or speak to their insurance company I have about as much sympathy as I do a Texas Hold Em player who shoves all in on a pair of fives, gets called and a higher card comes down so they lose.
I try to have sympathy for people in bad situations even if they're party to blame.
Yes. And there is a not a perfect similarity between somebody booking a family holiday and playing Texas Hold Em.
No analogy is perfect but both are entirely optional leisure activities that cost money and were known this year to be a gamble.
Not a particularly good example though as there are times in texas holdem when pushing all in with a pair of fives preflop is absolutely the optimal play you can make.
I am not sure you can say the same of flying abroad for a holiday in the midst of a pandemic can ever be considered an optimal play
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Surely the SNP would have the option of voting to install Starmer but to vote down his Queen's Speech unless it includes a referendum? And vote down anything else he chooses to do? The Tories aren't going to vote for Starmer's Queen's Speech.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
But they would need to vote him in before he came into office. And that would mean voting for an agreed Queen’s Speech.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
Surely voting to install a new PM will not arise if the FTPA is repealed - as promised?
How do you suppose it will be done? By a game of tiddly winks?
We had no such votes to install Cameron in 2010 or Brown in 2007. Surely in the event of a Hung Parliament we would be back to the scenarios of 2010 and post Feb 1974 - assuming the FTPA has gone?
The traditional process, which given your extensive knowledge of history and our constitution I am sure you are aware of, is for a PM to resign when it is clear they cannot get a Queen’s Speech through. Otherwise they could take the Baldwin 1923 option of meeting parliament and being voted down.
Which option would Johnson take?
If the SNP hold the balance of power he will want to cause maximum discomfort for them and Labour. He will stay in office.
I agree that he could do that - in the same way that Brown could have remained in office for a further 10 days or so in May 2010 until defeated on his Queens Speech. At that point though , he would have to resign without a formal vote to install a successor.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Yup Boris can and will deny them.
He ran in the UK election on a “you’ve had your once in a generation vote just over 5 years ago, no referendum in this Parliament”. He won, and there’s no reason to go back on that:-
SNP voters are hardly likely Tory converts in anything other than tiny numbers. It shores up the Tory vote as “the reliable unionists”, compared to SLab being tempted to play footsie.
If he wins again UK wide and gets 6-10 Scottish seats, job done for another five years. Sturgeon’s not daft enough to declare UDI and see recognition from Xi, Putin, and Venezuela as her reward, while Madrid quietly goes nuts and kills any European option stone dead.
Meanwhile Starmer will have to say something about what he’d do if he wins an overall majority, or needs SNP support. Saying he supports a referendum means out come the Sturgeon posters with Starmer tucked in her handbag ( see Ed M 2015). If he says he’s dead against, SLab MP’s in 2024 can probably all go to Westminster on the same motorbike, and he has to somehow overcome a majority in England against him of 150 plus with a bit of Welsh help, and that’s not the given it was, and Wales gets 8 less seats in all likelihood too.
From Boris’ perspective even if Starmer “loses” Scotland for the union, it just means the bar to a Tory majority in the 93% of the country that’s left has been pretty permanently lowered by about 50/55 seats. Not too bad a consolation.
Hmm. Slab MPs can already go to London on as single Segway, of course. A motorbike would be a 100% (or 200%, with sidecar) improvement.
And on this comment and others today, remember Slab has been claiming for decades (a claim which Jim Callaghan denied, and he should know) that it was all the SNP's fault for letting Mrs Thatcher in. They were part of the vote against Callaghan, yes, but not all.
A lot of Scots are therefore very familiar with that canard and the underlying problems which it highlights about Scotland's representation at Westminster (in several sense of the word).
The most remarkable market is Betfair's gender of the next president (1.03 or 1/33 male; 25/1 female). Now of course the price will be hammered by Betfair's commission so this is not a tip, but it does remind us that nothing is certain this year.
Yes, if the election is prevented by COVID, President Pelosi is apparently a valid constitutional possibility.
Except that if the General Election didn't take place then the House would also cease to exist. In that theoretical scenario (which I'm as sure as I can be of almost anything will not come to pass) then the Presidency would, presumably, pass to the President pro tem of the Senate. Step forward Chuck Grassley (R), 86, the senior Senator from Iowa.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Yup Boris can and will deny them.
He ran in the UK election on a “you’ve had your once in a generation vote just over 5 years ago, no referendum in this Parliament”. He won, and there’s no reason to go back on that:-
SNP voters are hardly likely Tory converts in anything other than tiny numbers. It shores up the Tory vote as “the reliable unionists”, compared to SLab being tempted to play footsie.
If he wins again UK wide and gets 6-10 Scottish seats, job done for another five years. Sturgeon’s not daft enough to declare UDI and see recognition from Xi, Putin, and Venezuela as her reward, while Madrid quietly goes nuts and kills any European option stone dead.
Meanwhile Starmer will have to say something about what he’d do if he wins an overall majority, or needs SNP support. Saying he supports a referendum means out come the Sturgeon posters with Starmer tucked in her handbag ( see Ed M 2015). If he says he’s dead against, SLab MP’s in 2024 can probably all go to Westminster on the same motorbike, and he has to somehow overcome a majority in England against him of 150 plus with a bit of Welsh help, and that’s not the given it was, and Wales gets 8 less seats in all likelihood too.
From Boris’ perspective even if Starmer “loses” Scotland for the union, it just means the bar to a Tory majority in the 93% of the country that’s left has been pretty permanently lowered by about 50/55 seats. Not too bad a consolation.
Hmm. Slab MPs can already go to London on as single Segway, of course. A motorbike would be a 100% (or 200%, with sidecar) improvement.
And on this comment and others today, remember Slab has been claiming for decades (a claim which Jim Callaghan denied, and he should know) that it was all the SNP's fault for letting Mrs Thatcher in. They were part of the vote against Callaghan, yes, but not all.
A lot of Scots are therefore very familiar with that canard and the underlying problems which it highlights about Scotland's representation at Westminster (in several sense of the word).
Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Yup Boris can and will deny them.
He ran in the UK election on a “you’ve had your once in a generation vote just over 5 years ago, no referendum in this Parliament”. He won, and there’s no reason to go back on that:-
SNP voters are hardly likely Tory converts in anything other than tiny numbers. It shores up the Tory vote as “the reliable unionists”, compared to SLab being tempted to play footsie.
If he wins again UK wide and gets 6-10 Scottish seats, job done for another five years. Sturgeon’s not daft enough to declare UDI and see recognition from Xi, Putin, and Venezuela as her reward, while Madrid quietly goes nuts and kills any European option stone dead.
Meanwhile Starmer will have to say something about what he’d do if he wins an overall majority, or needs SNP support. Saying he supports a referendum means out come the Sturgeon posters with Starmer tucked in her handbag ( see Ed M 2015). If he says he’s dead against, SLab MP’s in 2024 can probably all go to Westminster on the same motorbike, and he has to somehow overcome a majority in England against him of 150 plus with a bit of Welsh help, and that’s not the given it was, and Wales gets 8 less seats in all likelihood too.
From Boris’ perspective even if Starmer “loses” Scotland for the union, it just means the bar to a Tory majority in the 93% of the country that’s left has been pretty permanently lowered by about 50/55 seats. Not too bad a consolation.
Hmm. Slab MPs can already go to London on as single Segway, of course. A motorbike would be a 100% (or 200%, with sidecar) improvement.
And on this comment and others today, remember Slab has been claiming for decades (a claim which Jim Callaghan denied, and he should know) that it was all the SNP's fault for letting Mrs Thatcher in. They were part of the vote against Callaghan, yes, but not all.
A lot of Scots are therefore very familiar with that canard and the underlying problems which it highlights about Scotland's representation at Westminster (in several sense of the word).
Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.
Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
@Fysics_Teacher - just dawned on me I omitted to mention water for the stew, when adding the veg in the recipe I gave. Pretty obvious I hope, but braising was not what I meant!
Thanks! Water, or is stock better?
Never bother with stock let alone gravy browning. Try it without and then modify to your taste, I'd say.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Yup Boris can and will deny them.
He ran in the UK election on a “you’ve had your once in a generation vote just over 5 years ago, no referendum in this Parliament”. He won, and there’s no reason to go back on that:-
SNP voters are hardly likely Tory converts in anything other than tiny numbers. It shores up the Tory vote as “the reliable unionists”, compared to SLab being tempted to play footsie.
If he wins again UK wide and gets 6-10 Scottish seats, job done for another five years. Sturgeon’s not daft enough to declare UDI and see recognition from Xi, Putin, and Venezuela as her reward, while Madrid quietly goes nuts and kills any European option stone dead.
Meanwhile Starmer will have to say something about what he’d do if he wins an overall majority, or needs SNP support. Saying he supports a referendum means out come the Sturgeon posters with Starmer tucked in her handbag ( see Ed M 2015). If he says he’s dead against, SLab MP’s in 2024 can probably all go to Westminster on the same motorbike, and he has to somehow overcome a majority in England against him of 150 plus with a bit of Welsh help, and that’s not the given it was, and Wales gets 8 less seats in all likelihood too.
From Boris’ perspective even if Starmer “loses” Scotland for the union, it just means the bar to a Tory majority in the 93% of the country that’s left has been pretty permanently lowered by about 50/55 seats. Not too bad a consolation.
Hmm. Slab MPs can already go to London on as single Segway, of course. A motorbike would be a 100% (or 200%, with sidecar) improvement.
And on this comment and others today, remember Slab has been claiming for decades (a claim which Jim Callaghan denied, and he should know) that it was all the SNP's fault for letting Mrs Thatcher in. They were part of the vote against Callaghan, yes, but not all.
A lot of Scots are therefore very familiar with that canard and the underlying problems which it highlights about Scotland's representation at Westminster (in several sense of the word).
Yes granted.
If Scotland goes ( more likely than it was five years ago, but not a slam dunk gimme) there’s a straight forward plus for the Tories in rUK and Labour have a strategic problem, that they will resolve of course but only by moving towards a more English electorate which is likely to mean moving a bit rightwards from their normal centre of gravity.
For anyone who has gone to Spain (or booked) and is now upset that they have to quarantine or speak to their insurance company I have about as much sympathy as I do a Texas Hold Em player who shoves all in on a pair of fives, gets called and a higher card comes down so they lose.
I try to have sympathy for people in bad situations even if they're party to blame.
Yes. And there is a not a perfect similarity between somebody booking a family holiday and playing Texas Hold Em.
No analogy is perfect but both are entirely optional leisure activities that cost money and were known this year to be a gamble.
Not a particularly good example though as there are times in texas holdem when pushing all in with a pair of fives preflop is absolutely the optimal play you can make.
I am not sure you can say the same of flying abroad for a holiday in the midst of a pandemic can ever be considered an optimal play
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
It is not, I think a religious issue - more of an integration issue. In the sense of being integrated into the societal systems - police, health etc etc.
Consider this - factories were running as sweat shops in Leicester - illegal conditions, below minimum wage. Why was this happening? All it should take is a single phone call.
It is my opinion that a combination of community isolation plus a form of racism in officialdom is the key to this.
By racism do you mean the fear of being called racist?
Not so much....
From my encounters with officialdom it is a combination of
- "It'll cause trouble, political trouble" - "Policy is to turn a blind eye" - "They are like that" racism - see E. Said - "They are doing it to their own" racism
The most remarkable market is Betfair's gender of the next president (1.03 or 1/33 male; 25/1 female). Now of course the price will be hammered by Betfair's commission so this is not a tip, but it does remind us that nothing is certain this year.
Yes, if the election is prevented by COVID, President Pelosi is apparently a valid constitutional possibility.
Except that if the General Election didn't take place then the House would also cease to exist. In that theoretical scenario (which I'm as sure as I can be of almost anything will not come to pass) then the Presidency would, presumably, pass to the President pro tem of the Senate. Step forward Chuck Grassley (R), 86, the senior Senator from Iowa.
Considering that the USA carried out a GE while mid Civil War, I think that Covid-19 will not prevent it. It is likely to be shambolic though, as American elections are bonkers even at the best of times:
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
It is not, I think a religious issue - more of an integration issue. In the sense of being integrated into the societal systems - police, health etc etc.
Consider this - factories were running as sweat shops in Leicester - illegal conditions, below minimum wage. Why was this happening? All it should take is a single phone call.
It is my opinion that a combination of community isolation plus a form of racism in officialdom is the key to this.
By racism do you mean the fear of being called racist?
Not so much....
From my encounters with officialdom it is a combination of
- "It'll cause trouble, political trouble" - "Policy is to turn a blind eye" - "They are like that" racism - see E. Said - "They are doing it to their own" racism
Ok, I'm getting a hint of what you're driving at.
No, the authorities have known for years what is going on, as cited in this FT article from a couple of years back:
"Representatives from UK Visas and Immigration, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority all attended a meeting hosted by Leicester mayor Sir Peter Soulsby last October, where the problems were discussed in detail. But a comb through freedom-of-information requests, MPs questions and public records does not reveal a state that has done much to sort this out."
"HSE, meanwhile, was told by the government in 2011 to cut the number of proactive workplace inspections it makes by one-third. In 2012, Chris Grayling, then employment minister, said: “If we try to legislate out all risk, we will lose jobs to other places.” For textiles manufacturing, the enforcement approach has been “principally reactive”. There were 187 inspections of garment and textile factories last year, an increase on 103 inspections five years ago. But there were 136 workplace injuries reported in the sector last year — reportable injuries are those that necessitate more than a week off work or involve damage such as amputations, the crushing of internal organs or burns covering more than 10 per cent of the body. HSE investigated just five."
Full Fact finds no evidence the Leicester outbreak was down to the Muslim factor. Fair enough, but why are the regions that seem to be spiking in the UK (according to @Malmesbury’s charts) mostly those with a high Muslim population?
It is not, I think a religious issue - more of an integration issue. In the sense of being integrated into the societal systems - police, health etc etc.
Consider this - factories were running as sweat shops in Leicester - illegal conditions, below minimum wage. Why was this happening? All it should take is a single phone call.
It is my opinion that a combination of community isolation plus a form of racism in officialdom is the key to this.
By racism do you mean the fear of being called racist?
Not so much....
From my encounters with officialdom it is a combination of
- "It'll cause trouble, political trouble" - "Policy is to turn a blind eye" - "They are like that" racism - see E. Said - "They are doing it to their own" racism
Ok, I'm getting a hint of what you're driving at.
No, the authorities have known for years what is going on, as cited in this FT article from a couple of years back:
"Representatives from UK Visas and Immigration, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority all attended a meeting hosted by Leicester mayor Sir Peter Soulsby last October, where the problems were discussed in detail. But a comb through freedom-of-information requests, MPs questions and public records does not reveal a state that has done much to sort this out."
"HSE, meanwhile, was told by the government in 2011 to cut the number of proactive workplace inspections it makes by one-third. In 2012, Chris Grayling, then employment minister, said: “If we try to legislate out all risk, we will lose jobs to other places.” For textiles manufacturing, the enforcement approach has been “principally reactive”. There were 187 inspections of garment and textile factories last year, an increase on 103 inspections five years ago. But there were 136 workplace injuries reported in the sector last year — reportable injuries are those that necessitate more than a week off work or involve damage such as amputations, the crushing of internal organs or burns covering more than 10 per cent of the body. HSE investigated just five."
Comments
Headline - 9
7 Days - 6
Yesterday - 1
As ever - last 3-5 days subject to revision etc.
Although there were those on here last night who fell the need to earnestly explain to me how and why Johnson's letter box and bank robbers dog whistles are not racist but obvious satire.
I can currently lay him at 14. (Or back Vardy at 1.15.)
Ings is two goals behind Vardy (Ings missed a penalty the other night).
Hmm - I`m thinking I should lay Ings but I dislike closing out bets. Thoughts?
As far as SLAB are concerned if their manifesto says no second referendum then any votes for them are votes against a referendum. Just as any votes for the SNP are votes for one even if some SNP voters don't want one and simply think the SNP are the best party for Scotland. You can't start trying to second guess votes.
Should Cummings have been reprimanded by Johnson for his breaking of the rules?
Personally I think turnout thresholds and possible even result thresholds for referenda on major constitutional issues are not unreasonable, being about a specific proposition that you want a clear answer to not a parliamentary poll which is to a degree but not exactly a proxy for said proposition. But sadly having conceded the point in the previous referenda I don't think it can reasonably be applied next time.
However, that is to ignore the original point. The suggestion was a low turnout would undermine the legitimacy of an SNP win as a mandate for a referendum. My response is, quite simply, unless there is clear evidence of voter suppression or intimidation, that argument does not stack up. Those who fail to vote in a free and fair election can have no complaint if the outcome is not as they wish.*
Whatever your views of the SNP, and there are some really dodgy people coming to the surface now, Sturgeon is a democratic politician and has never shown anything less than a total commitment to democratic processes and the rule of law. I am in no doubt whatsoever that the election will be free and fair and the result must therefore be considered representative of Scottish opinion.
*(Yes, this does apply to me as an active abstainer last time. My problem was there was no electoral outcome I felt able to endorse.)
Apparently, abolishing it was a human rights issue.
I would adjust to create a win £1000 vs win a few quid profile.
But that's just my psychology. Probably the objective value is to let it ride.
- All registered voters are assumed to have voted for Re-Open Nominations (RON), unless they have voted.
- If RON wins, revote.
- All previous candidates are ineligible for the re-election.
A low turnout - below Westminster elections - would also be evidence that voters see Holyrood as a secondary lower tier authority - a regional authority with a standing somewhat higher than local authorities.
This holds that communities have the right not to integrate and to maintain their nationalistic* links to other groups/societies/countries.
Demanding their allegiance to a single identity is an attack on their right to multiple nationalistic identities.
The suggestion that they can always resign UK nationality to avoid such an issue is racist, in that view.
*In the Orwell sense - might be political, religious, ethnic nationalism
It's kind of moot anyway if Labour can win 300+ seats, though (which is probably what they'd need to be able to govern without the SNP). Considering Cameron won additional 100 seats in England and Wales in 2010, I don't think it's impossible SKS could do the same.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
This trope exists pretty much exclusively in the folk memories of old Labourites.
Which suggests that he had been coasting along in the years prior to being dropped.
First to clear up on me. No, I can't stand him. But I neither wanted him to go over that, nor did I expect him to. What I did want and expect, though, was a PUBLIC reprimand from Johnson. This imo was crucial to show the public that he took the matter seriously and it was not a "one rule for the little people, one for us" situation.
Instead we got "He acted in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
So weak and disappointing.
Now then, million dollar question upon which something worth more than a million dollars rides (your integrity) -
Were YOU disappointed in that too?
Should the SNP refuse to play ball then the only means to form a Government and avoid a dissolution would be for one of the large parties to enable its rival, either by forming a grand coalition, or under some more informal agreement, or by providing at least tacit backing through abstention in a vote of confidence.
The SNP cannot possibly lose under any of these scenarios. If it succeeds in forcing Labour to yield to a second referendum, good. If it compels Westminster to keep having elections over and over again until somebody gives in to it, also good. If Labour and the Tories end up working together in order to frustrate the second referendum, then the entire British political establishment has engaged in a massive conspiracy to imprison Scotland and Labour are also revealed to be nothing but pink Tories, so good again. The Unionist position is quite hopeless.
The Liberal Party of 1911, essentially.
Drink like Asquith, Party like Lloyd George, pensions and Dreadnoughts like Churchill.
So Starmer would be in office but not in power.
https://fullfact.org/health/leicester-covid-outbreak-islam/
Regardless, we are nowhere near back to normal. I’d say at least 50% of bars and restaurants were still not open. No wonder there’s still so many people on furlough.
It cant simply be a “unable to comply with H&S legislation” reason as some much smaller bars and restaurants were open. Dare I say that some owners are happy to sit closed with their staff on furlough for as long as possible?
They're all smaller cities with high population density. The bigger cities had their outbreaks first and its easier to control with lower population density.
Otherwise - fresh elections, where the SNP would have to explain they could have removed the Tories from office but chose not to.
Consider this - factories were running as sweat shops in Leicester - illegal conditions, below minimum wage. Why was this happening? All it should take is a single phone call.
It is my opinion that a combination of community isolation plus a form of racism in officialdom is the key to this.
And as for the final question the answer is very easy. If they win the election next year but are stymied then they will stoke for all they are worth the idea that Scotland is being ignored and trodden over. If Starmer also refusing to agree the referendum then they will say that they offered support to Starmer, he just had to respect Scotland's choices - and that Starmer is refusing to respect Scotland. If that happens the SNPs voters will not view Starmer as that much better than the Tories.
It's therefore entirely possible that, whilst it looks like these outbreaks might be something to do with Muslim communities disregarding the regulations to deal with Covid or failing to understand them, the outbreak pattern is in fact down to large and/or multi-generational families living in small houses within a confined area - conditions that might disproportionately apply to Muslim communities - perhaps compounded by a greater susceptibility to the virus that has already been suggested by the hospitalisation and mortality statistics for non-white people.
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1287363981204762626?s=20
He ran in the UK election on a “you’ve had your once in a generation vote just over 5 years ago, no referendum in this Parliament”. He won, and there’s no reason to go back on that:-
SNP voters are hardly likely Tory converts in anything other than tiny numbers. It shores up the Tory vote as “the reliable unionists”, compared to SLab being tempted to play footsie.
If he wins again UK wide and gets 6-10 Scottish seats, job done for another five years. Sturgeon’s not daft enough to declare UDI and see recognition from Xi, Putin, and Venezuela as her reward, while Madrid quietly goes nuts and kills any European option stone dead.
Meanwhile Starmer will have to say something about what he’d do if he wins an overall majority, or needs SNP support. Saying he supports a referendum means out come the Sturgeon posters with Starmer tucked in her handbag ( see Ed M 2015). If he says he’s dead against, SLab MP’s in 2024 can probably all go to Westminster on the same motorbike, and he has to somehow overcome a majority in England against him of 150 plus with a bit of Welsh help, and that’s not the given it was, and Wales gets 8 less seats in all likelihood too.
From Boris’ perspective even if Starmer “loses” Scotland for the union, it just means the bar to a Tory majority in the 93% of the country that’s left has been pretty permanently lowered by about 50/55 seats. Not too bad a consolation.
NEW THREAD
From my encounters with officialdom it is a combination of
- "It'll cause trouble, political trouble"
- "Policy is to turn a blind eye"
- "They are like that" racism - see E. Said
- "They are doing it to their own" racism
Surely in the event of a Hung Parliament we would be back to the scenarios of 2010 and post Feb 1974 - assuming the FTPA has gone?
But the good news is I am now seeking to hear them unfiltered. So one final chance -
Were you - as I was - rather disappointed in Johnson's public response to the breaking of quarantine rules by his Chief Political Advisor, Dominic Cummings?
C'mon. You can do it.
Which option would Johnson take?
If the SNP hold the balance of power he will want to cause maximum discomfort for them and Labour. He will stay in office.
But it's well known that yes/no split does not lie across the party lines anyway, so your analysis would be incredible. The PB Britnats keep telling me that lots of SNP voters don't weant indy, after all.
Hopefully the authorities will be able to disentangle causation and mere coincidence in places like Leicester, Blackburn and Luton. A better understanding might provide value information about where future moles may need whacking, and how to go about doing that quickly and effectively.
I am not sure you can say the same of flying abroad for a holiday in the midst of a pandemic can ever be considered an optimal play
And on this comment and others today, remember Slab has been claiming for decades (a claim which Jim Callaghan denied, and he should know) that it was all the SNP's fault for letting Mrs Thatcher in. They were part of the vote against Callaghan, yes, but not all.
A lot of Scots are therefore very familiar with that canard and the underlying problems which it highlights about Scotland's representation at Westminster (in several sense of the word).
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP.
If Scotland goes ( more likely than it was five years ago, but not a slam dunk gimme) there’s a straight forward plus for the Tories in rUK and Labour have a strategic problem, that they will resolve of course but only by moving towards a more English electorate which is likely to mean moving a bit rightwards from their normal centre of gravity.
EDIT - No, I mean right but also wrong.
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286807094088421376?s=09
"Representatives from UK Visas and Immigration, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority all attended a meeting hosted by Leicester mayor Sir Peter Soulsby last October, where the problems were discussed in detail. But a comb through freedom-of-information requests, MPs questions and public records does not reveal a state that has done much to sort this out."
"HSE, meanwhile, was told by the government in 2011 to cut the number of proactive workplace inspections it makes by one-third. In 2012, Chris Grayling, then employment minister, said: “If we try to legislate out all risk, we will lose jobs to other places.” For textiles manufacturing, the enforcement approach has been “principally reactive”. There were 187 inspections of garment and textile factories last year, an increase on 103 inspections five years ago. But there were 136 workplace injuries reported in the sector last year — reportable injuries are those that necessitate more than a week off work or involve damage such as amputations, the crushing of internal organs or burns covering more than 10 per cent of the body. HSE investigated just five."
https://www.ft.com/content/e427327e-5892-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0
Go Boris!