Try going on holiday to France with a friend who is vegetarian. It’s better now, but twenty years ago?
Italy was much better: lots of great pasta dishes that don’t use meat. Luckily she was not fussy about cheese, adopting a “don’t ask” policy.
Yes - been there with a young family, one vegetarian, back then. France was pretty crap and uncompromising; Italy fantastic.
Had dinner 25 years ago in Paris with a vegetarian English solicitor and a French bigwig the solicitor was pandering to. Solicitor had ordering anxiety and was visibly relieved when he negotiated himself a main course themed around marrow. It turned out not to be vegetable marrow...
It was when they served virtually raw steak haché to a tired 6 year old, and were unmoved by her somewhat emotional reaction, that I decided the French were not my favourite Europeans. In contrast, every Italian restaurant we visited were utterly charming.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Free your mind, Casino. Vegan food won’t kill you; some of it even tastes OK.
To use one of my sister's argument. Yeah but bacon.
Bacon is truly the food of the gods. Now if we could teach americans what bacon actually is and why hp sauce I would be in heaven
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
The SNP and Saint Nichola have done a awful job and got away with it as the MSM has gone after the Tories and treated the inept nationalist govt with reverence (aside from a few union leaning papers in Scotland). Just look at the free ride the inept Swinney got over the Scottish education Debracle. Making Williamson seem cerebral.
Eh? All the newspapers in Scotland are rabid unionists, with the one exception.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
On topic, I think the PB Tories should be concerned by the narrowing of the polls. I say this because Starmer hasn't really done, or proposed, anything much yet (though he does beat BJ at PMQs). He has just been sensible and measured, and ensured a marked distance from Corbyn's regime. Starmer's team is still largely unknown, and his policy largely a vacuum. Why would you vote Labour, other than for a bit of common sense? What does Starmer stand for - we've no idea? And aren't there still lots of leftie loons and woke people in the Labour Party? How could you vote for somebody who takes the knee? So there are not many good reasons for a positive vote for Labour yet. And yet - they are close to the Tories in the polls.
So I don't think the narrowing of the polls has much to do with a Labour surge at all. It is almost exclusively down to disillusionment with the government and its leadership. Some non-tribal Tories, and LDs, are saying we may vote Labour now they are not clearly mad - it's the Tories now who are going a bit bonkers, especially BJ and that short-sighted mate of his (oh, and that Gavin idiot).
Once the Covid crisis abates and Labour has the chance to set out what they are for, rather than just what they are against, I would expect a significant Labour lead. This may not be for a year or so, but could be much sooner.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Free your mind, Casino. Vegan food won’t kill you; some of it even tastes OK.
To use one of my sister's argument. Yeah but bacon.
Bacon is truly the food of the gods. Now if we could teach americans what bacon actually is and why hp sauce I would be in heaven
Love a nice pack of Jolly Hog bacon. Even better from a farm shop or a butchers.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
I think such an attitude would make ultimately winning a second referendum much more difficult.
Undoubtedly.
BoZo doesn't care.
Not sure I agree. There is an argument that it might be better to try and see Sturgeon out because she is a formidable politician and it is very unlikely the next SNP leader will be in the same class but I am a democrat ( one of the reasons I got so pissed off at those remainer MPs in the last Parliament) and if a majority of Scots vote for a second referendum it will be time to man the parapets again.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
Why oh why won't those Jocks accept that they're genetically Anglo Saxon?
Lowlanders like you are genetically identical to the native English. As you know, of course. Most of you ARE English.
It's the Gaels who are genetically different, on their dreaming islands. Bless 'em. I hope their dying language is saved.
Eh?? We Lowlanders are about as much English as you English are Scottish - a mixture from all over the place, including 'Britons', Friesians, Gaels and Danes in my case. And plkenty of Gaels on the mainland too, especially Glasgow.
After depriving the Conservatives of their majority in 2024 and assuming Labour plus SNP gets to a majority (or very close), Starmer says to Sturgeon - "you support my legislation, you get your second referendum".
"I will campaign to keep the Union and if I win, I will expect your MPs to continue supporting my Government for the duration of the Parliament."
"If the Independence vote carries, I will endeavour to provide as amicable and harmonious a divorce as possible and while that period of transition to independence continues, I will expect the support of your MPs. Once we have reached the agreed day of separation, your MPs will leave Westminster and assuming I no longer have a majority, I will seek an election in the rest of the United Kingdom after which there will likely be a substantial Conservative majority."
This is interesting in places, but it's very skewed towards the balkan land route. For whatever reason, many more Syrians and Iraqis have come via the Aegean sea route. The borders of northeastern Greece and Southeastern Bulgaria present roughly what is shown here - a disporportionate number particularly of economic migrants from places like Pakistan, against the backdrop both of the more balkan, particularly corrupt borderland areas of northern Greece and southern Bulgaria.
These economic migrants are also present on the islands, but there the sitauation is rather different ; large numbers of Syrians and Iraqis mixed with the economic migrants, and a number of Northwest European and Greek NGO's dealing with them ; with Greece's more Western face presenting a similar hosting-point to the former jumping off-points at the Southern tip of Italy ; and, here, despite all the problems, with the Greek system accepting a higher number of asylum acceptances than the UK provides.
On topic, I think the PB Tories should be concerned by the narrowing of the polls. I say this because Starmer hasn't really done, or proposed, anything much yet (though he does beat BJ at PMQs). He has just been sensible and measured, and ensured a marked distance from Corbyn's regime. Starmer's team is still largely unknown, and his policy largely a vacuum. Why would you vote Labour, other than for a bit of common sense? What does Starmer stand for - we've no idea? And aren't there still lots of leftie loons and woke people in the Labour Party? How could you vote for somebody who takes the knee? So there are not many good reasons for a positive vote for Labour yet. And yet - they are close to the Tories in the polls.
So I don't think the narrowing of the polls has much to do with a Labour surge at all. It is almost exclusively down to disillusionment with the government and its leadership. Some non-tribal Tories, and LDs, are saying we may vote Labour now they are not clearly mad - it's the Tories now who are going a bit bonkers, especially BJ and that short-sighted mate of his (oh, and that Gavin idiot).
Once the Covid crisis abates and Labour has the chance to set out what they are for, rather than just what they are against, I would expect a significant Labour lead. This may not be for a year or so, but could be much sooner.
Starner will be told what he is for by the membership just as Corbyn found what he wanted such as no trident didn't matter. They changed the rulebook so conference dictates the manifesto not the leadership. I expect 2024 Starmer to run with a very left wing manifesto that he doesnt really believe in and it will shine through
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
Yes, possibly....... but opinions can also revert. Look at Quebec. Seemed destined for indy and separation was deemed inevitable, the die was cast, the emotions set in place... and yet the 2nd ref was very narrowly lost and now Quebec indy is barely an issue.
Pendulums swing. Always.
Moreover: polls during a global pandemic should be treated with caution, on all sides. Emotions run high. This, by the way, is true of polls giving Boris 30 point leads as of polls giving Starmer sudden popularity.
I know that Quebec is sometimes raised in discussion about a second Scottish referendum, but there are certain important differences between the position of Quebec in Canada and Scotland in the UK. Quebec has a strong sense of its own identity but it has never been a state. Scotland has many separate institutions and traditions that have survived throughout the last three centuries, and the collective memory of being one of the most ancient nations of Europe.
Quebecois secession would've carved English Canada in two and left Newfoundland and the Atlantics cut off. If Scotland goes then there are no bits of England to the North of it to be left out on a limb; it would rather cut Northern Ireland off from the rest of the country, to be sure, but I'm not sure how many people in England and Wales would be that bothered by this, to be honest.
The situation in Quebec was rescued largely by the rest of Canada love-bombing it. I'm just not sure what proportion of the population in England and Wales is prepared to plead with Scotland to stick around. I think that's a combination of benign neglect, and the awareness that they're not happy and are always complaining about something so they might as well go and do their own thing.
I don't actively want the UK to break up, but I don't believe that the political will exists to make it work again and nor do I believe that the popular will exists in Scotland even to try. So one might as well resign oneself to the inevitable, move on and look on the bright side. Besides anything else, we're a lot safer from loony leftism in England if the bloc vote from the Scottish central belt is no longer there to act as an ally.
Is it such a 'massive boost' for the opposition to be 2 points behind on VI and 4 points ahead on best PM? Isn't the real story the puzzle that somehow they are not about 30 points ahead on VI and out of sight on best leader?
The government have had a catastrophic time since election and have lost the Daily Mail the DT and the entire media, and yet are still in the lead. From here, even after all this farrago they could still win the next election at a canter. The bookies still make them odds on for most seats.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
This contemporary article from the Guardian suggests otherwise.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
The SNP and Saint Nichola have done a awful job and got away with it as the MSM has gone after the Tories and treated the inept nationalist govt with reverence (aside from a few union leaning papers in Scotland). Just look at the free ride the inept Swinney got over the Scottish education Debracle. Making Williamson seem cerebral.
Eh? All the newspapers in Scotland are rabid unionists, with the one exception.
Of all the uniformly malformed, whiffy assholes...sorry opinions...exposed on here, the one that claims that the SNP is let off by the press, state broadcaster and compliant opposition in Scotland is probably the most cretinously ill informed. Also a pretty good indication that they've not got much in the locker on any other subject.
So. My son's school wanted all enrollments for Sixth Form by Friday morning to plan timetabling, bubbles, etc. However, as a former specialist technology school they offer a large number of unusual courses, such as textiles which require a BTec to get on them. So bang goes that planning.
On topic, I think the PB Tories should be concerned by the narrowing of the polls. I say this because Starmer hasn't really done, or proposed, anything much yet (though he does beat BJ at PMQs). He has just been sensible and measured, and ensured a marked distance from Corbyn's regime. Starmer's team is still largely unknown, and his policy largely a vacuum. Why would you vote Labour, other than for a bit of common sense? What does Starmer stand for - we've no idea? And aren't there still lots of leftie loons and woke people in the Labour Party? How could you vote for somebody who takes the knee? So there are not many good reasons for a positive vote for Labour yet. And yet - they are close to the Tories in the polls.
So I don't think the narrowing of the polls has much to do with a Labour surge at all. It is almost exclusively down to disillusionment with the government and its leadership. Some non-tribal Tories, and LDs, are saying we may vote Labour now they are not clearly mad - it's the Tories now who are going a bit bonkers, especially BJ and that short-sighted mate of his (oh, and that Gavin idiot).
Once the Covid crisis abates and Labour has the chance to set out what they are for, rather than just what they are against, I would expect a significant Labour lead. This may not be for a year or so, but could be much sooner.
I’m not sure if I count as a PB Tory, but I’m not worried by Sir Kier doing well because I’m not worried by the prospect of him becoming PM in 2024. I though Ed would win the 2015 election and was not that fussed. I was terrified by the prospect of Jeremy wining in 2019 (having written him off like so many in 2017). Sir Kier? At worst he will make the Tories up their game, and if they don’t he will beat them.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
This contemporary article from the Guardian suggests otherwise.
After depriving the Conservatives of their majority in 2024 and assuming Labour plus SNP gets to a majority (or very close), Starmer says to Sturgeon - "you support my legislation, you get your second referendum".
"I will campaign to keep the Union and if I win, I will expect your MPs to continue supporting my Government for the duration of the Parliament."
"If the Independence vote carries, I will endeavour to provide as amicable and harmonious a divorce as possible and while that period of transition to independence continues, I will expect the support of your MPs. Once we have reached the agreed day of separation, your MPs will leave Westminster and assuming I no longer have a majority, I will seek an election in the rest of the United Kingdom after which there will likely be a substantial Conservative majority."
Too easy?
I suppose that the last sentence could be omitted - strictly speaking ultra vires by then [edit] from the Scots point of view. But something of the sort would be needed.
So. My son's school wanted all enrollments for Sixth Form by Friday morning to plan timetabling, bubbles, etc. However, as a former specialist technology school they offer a large number of unusual courses, such as textiles which require a BTec to get on them. So bang goes that planning.
Good luck to the poor soul who has to write a timetable in that short a time span, even if the results had come though on time!
On topic, I think the PB Tories should be concerned by the narrowing of the polls. I say this because Starmer hasn't really done, or proposed, anything much yet (though he does beat BJ at PMQs). He has just been sensible and measured, and ensured a marked distance from Corbyn's regime. Starmer's team is still largely unknown, and his policy largely a vacuum. Why would you vote Labour, other than for a bit of common sense? What does Starmer stand for - we've no idea? And aren't there still lots of leftie loons and woke people in the Labour Party? How could you vote for somebody who takes the knee? So there are not many good reasons for a positive vote for Labour yet. And yet - they are close to the Tories in the polls.
So I don't think the narrowing of the polls has much to do with a Labour surge at all. It is almost exclusively down to disillusionment with the government and its leadership. Some non-tribal Tories, and LDs, are saying we may vote Labour now they are not clearly mad - it's the Tories now who are going a bit bonkers, especially BJ and that short-sighted mate of his (oh, and that Gavin idiot).
Once the Covid crisis abates and Labour has the chance to set out what they are for, rather than just what they are against, I would expect a significant Labour lead. This may not be for a year or so, but could be much sooner.
I’m not sure if I count as a PB Tory, but I’m not worried by Sir Kier doing well because I’m not worried by the prospect of him becoming PM in 2024. I though Ed would win the 2015 election and was not that fussed. I was terrified by the prospect of Jeremy wining in 2019 (having written him off like so many in 2017). Sir Kier? At worst he will make the Tories up their game, and if they don’t he will beat them.
I've got you down as a one-nation Tory who would secretly love to vote for Keir if only you could spell his name!
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
This contemporary article from the Guardian suggests otherwise.
Yep, that's the one, and he does use the wording I recall, though a somewaht different obiter dicta later on. But it's not a formal statement. On which see also -
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
We've seen the writing on the wall, and we also now have the advantage of having lived through Brexit, which shares important similarities with the Scottish situation.
Remainers tried to convince the English that they would be an economic basket case without the EU, but so many of us were convinced that the drawbacks of the arrangement outweighed the advantages that we voted to leave anyway. Besides anything else, we could see that leaving the EU might indeed cause some damage, but the hyperbolic rhetoric over house price and currency collapses and the end of Western civilization was so much hogwash. It got the Leave voters out of a political arrangement that they had no faith in, and in other respects it was hardly the end of the world.
I think that's where the Scottish pro-independence voters are now. They don't think that leaving the UK is a panacea (and indeed I think the Scottish Government is going to get itself into a terrible pickle, trying to establish a set of largely or entirely novel institutions to tax people, pay out pensions and benefits, manage a currency, defend itself and represent the country abroad, all the while negotiating a hugely complex divorce settlement with a partner that will feel both rejected and impatient to be rid of it,) but those voters have had enough of the UK regardless. It seems unlikely that they will change their minds when it comes to a second referendum, irrespective of what party the Prime Minister of the day comes from.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
That's a good point, many of the more progressive Southrons on here manage to apply some principle to the current situation (and some honourable exceptions on the right).
The progressive case for the Union was an important element of Better Together, though more often than not it provided cover for the more gamey end of right wing Unionism. I can't see J.K. and Ewan McGregor going out on a limb for BJ. Perhaps they'll have a seance to summon Bowie?
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Free your mind, Casino. Vegan food won’t kill you; some of it even tastes OK.
After depriving the Conservatives of their majority in 2024 and assuming Labour plus SNP gets to a majority (or very close), Starmer says to Sturgeon - "you support my legislation, you get your second referendum".
"I will campaign to keep the Union and if I win, I will expect your MPs to continue supporting my Government for the duration of the Parliament."
"If the Independence vote carries, I will endeavour to provide as amicable and harmonious a divorce as possible and while that period of transition to independence continues, I will expect the support of your MPs. Once we have reached the agreed day of separation, your MPs will leave Westminster and assuming I no longer have a majority, I will seek an election in the rest of the United Kingdom after which there will likely be a substantial Conservative majority."
Too easy?
I suppose that the last sentence could be omitted - strictly speaking ultra vires by then [edit] from the Scots point of view. But something of the sort would be needed.
An independence vote carrying under circumstances like that would be the nightmare scenario, constitutionally but most of all for the sitting Labour Prime Minister. Well, in fact I think it would probably be career-ending for that individual (in the same way as the Leave vote was for Cameron,) and the political pressure thereafter to deprive the Scottish MPs of any meaningful say at Westminster would be enormous.
A new Labour leader could attempt to keep governing propped up by Scottish votes, but he or she would risk being pulverised in England at the following election. More likely there would need to be a GNU in London, or failing that an Exclusion Act which would strip the Scottish MPs of virtually all their authority and hand the keys to No.10 back to the Tories.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
I support scottish independence but have to say think you are wrong here. You would have about 11 meps out of 700. most issues are qmv by population of which your 5 mill would cut little ice
After depriving the Conservatives of their majority in 2024 and assuming Labour plus SNP gets to a majority (or very close), Starmer says to Sturgeon - "you support my legislation, you get your second referendum".
"I will campaign to keep the Union and if I win, I will expect your MPs to continue supporting my Government for the duration of the Parliament."
"If the Independence vote carries, I will endeavour to provide as amicable and harmonious a divorce as possible and while that period of transition to independence continues, I will expect the support of your MPs. Once we have reached the agreed day of separation, your MPs will leave Westminster and assuming I no longer have a majority, I will seek an election in the rest of the United Kingdom after which there will likely be a substantial Conservative majority."
Too easy?
I suppose if that comes to pass, Sir Keir will be feted as the man who made the split amicable, rather than the PM that lost the union (Boris)!
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
After depriving the Conservatives of their majority in 2024 and assuming Labour plus SNP gets to a majority (or very close), Starmer says to Sturgeon - "you support my legislation, you get your second referendum".
"I will campaign to keep the Union and if I win, I will expect your MPs to continue supporting my Government for the duration of the Parliament."
"If the Independence vote carries, I will endeavour to provide as amicable and harmonious a divorce as possible and while that period of transition to independence continues, I will expect the support of your MPs. Once we have reached the agreed day of separation, your MPs will leave Westminster and assuming I no longer have a majority, I will seek an election in the rest of the United Kingdom after which there will likely be a substantial Conservative majority."
Too easy?
I suppose that the last sentence could be omitted - strictly speaking ultra vires by then [edit] from the Scots point of view. But something of the sort would be needed.
An independence vote carrying under circumstances like that would be the nightmare scenario, constitutionally but most of all for the sitting Labour Prime Minister. Well, in fact I think it would probably be career-ending for that individual (in the same way as the Leave vote was for Cameron,) and the political pressure thereafter to deprive the Scottish MPs of any meaningful say at Westminster would be enormous.
A new Labour leader could attempt to keep governing propped up by Scottish votes, but he or she would risk being pulverised in England at the following election. More likely there would need to be a GNU in London, or failing that an Exclusion Act which would strip the Scottish MPs of virtually all their authority and hand the keys to No.10 back to the Tories.
I did wonder about that, but can't see how a Labour PM would willingly hand over to the Tories a day before it was constitutionally necessary (ie on independence day for Scvotland). An alternative would be some sort of cross-party commission to do the negotiating but again therte is that problem of representation.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
If the UN doesn’t want to know when one country outright takes over another (see Tibet) then I can’t see them getting involved in this.
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
I support scottish independence but have to say think you are wrong here. You would have about 11 meps out of 700. most issues are qmv by population of which your 5 mill would cut little ice
Still better than now. Think about that, especially in foreign policy.
Actually I'm not completely certain that Scotland would rejoin the EU as a full member - so much is going on. But trade is also important. I;m sure that EFTA would be a minimum.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
Different situation, legally: very much so. Equal signatories to the 1707 union, remember.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Not only do they keep the data they keep the intellectual property too. I cannot see why that is compatible with the Data Protection Act, where data can only be kept for explicit purposes, and that requires consent.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Me neither. Corporate access to such data is a major biomedical research issue.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
Different situation, legally: very much so. Equal signatories to the 1707 union, remember.
I don't believe so. The issue is with the nature of the Treaty of 1707. The UK is not a supranational or intergovernmental institution like the EU; the Treaty of Union is not at all the same sort of arrangement as the Treaty of Rome, and the Scottish Parliament is most definitely not a revival of the pre-1707 body. England and Scotland have no sovereign personality. They both dissolved themselves.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
I support scottish independence but have to say think you are wrong here. You would have about 11 meps out of 700. most issues are qmv by population of which your 5 mill would cut little ice
Nevertheless the EU would put no impediment in the way of Scotland deciding if it wanted a referendum on EU membership.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
Different situation, legally: very much so. Equal signatories to the 1707 union, remember.
I don't believe so. The issue is with the nature of the Treaty of 1707. The UK is not a supranational or intergovernmental institution like the EU; the Treaty of Union is not at all the same sort of arrangement as the Treaty of Rome, and the Scottish Parliament is most definitely not a revival of the pre-1707 body. England and Scotland have no sovereign personality. They both dissolved themselves.
The very first words written into the record of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were that it was specifically a reconvention of that closed in 1707. That was not challenged at the time.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Are you sure?
I think the state aid, competition and financial services regimes of the EU would (and will) look very different without us around.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Me neither. Corporate access to such data is a major biomedical research issue.
I dimly recall being sent some biomedical stuff about a national scheme to track health (biobank?). Pretty sure i checked the literature that came with it and it swore the data would not be sold or passed onto commercial third parties. I didn't believe them and this makes it sound like I was correct.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ten years ago - and that was a PM who would never call himself Scottish, of a Unionist party.
Now? Very different situation. Not a bonkers argument at all.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
Yes, possibly....... but opinions can also revert. Look at Quebec. Seemed destined for indy and separation was deemed inevitable, the die was cast, the emotions set in place... and yet the 2nd ref was very narrowly lost and now Quebec indy is barely an issue.
Pendulums swing. Always.
Moreover: polls during a global pandemic should be treated with caution, on all sides. Emotions run high. This, by the way, is true of polls giving Boris 30 point leads as of polls giving Starmer sudden popularity.
I know that Quebec is sometimes raised in discussion about a second Scottish referendum, but there are certain important differences between the position of Quebec in Canada and Scotland in the UK. Quebec has a strong sense of its own identity but it has never been a state. Scotland has many separate institutions and traditions that have survived throughout the last three centuries, and the collective memory of being one of the most ancient nations of Europe.
Quebecois secession would've carved English Canada in two and left Newfoundland and the Atlantics cut off. If Scotland goes then there are no bits of England to the North of it to be left out on a limb; it would rather cut Northern Ireland off from the rest of the country, to be sure, but I'm not sure how many people in England and Wales would be that bothered by this, to be honest.
The situation in Quebec was rescued largely by the rest of Canada love-bombing it. I'm just not sure what proportion of the population in England and Wales is prepared to plead with Scotland to stick around. I think that's a combination of benign neglect, and the awareness that they're not happy and are always complaining about something so they might as well go and do their own thing.
I don't actively want the UK to break up, but I don't believe that the political will exists to make it work again and nor do I believe that the popular will exists in Scotland even to try. So one might as well resign oneself to the inevitable, move on and look on the bright side. Besides anything else, we're a lot safer from loony leftism in England if the bloc vote from the Scottish central belt is no longer there to act as an ally.
Important also to note the relative strength of the Quebec electoral position. Whereas Scotland is around 1/12th of the UK population, Quebec is nearer 1/4. Therefore you would need to win 2/3rds of the seats in Anglophone Canada to win a Federal majority. Thus, all parties treat Quebec as a vital campaign ground rather than an afterthought.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
"the government"?
The English-approved one?
Just think about that assertion you have made.
So you're saying that if Scotland had a massive damascene conversion and elected 40 Tory MPs in the next election that they'd have no say in the government? It's a view.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
And his predecessor was born in Scotland.
In the last 20 years (so what 5 Scottish generations) we've had Scots as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Defence Secretary to name but a few.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
Different situation, legally: very much so. Equal signatories to the 1707 union, remember.
I don't believe so. The issue is with the nature of the Treaty of 1707. The UK is not a supranational or intergovernmental institution like the EU; the Treaty of Union is not at all the same sort of arrangement as the Treaty of Rome, and the Scottish Parliament is most definitely not a revival of the pre-1707 body. England and Scotland have no sovereign personality. They both dissolved themselves.
The very first words written into the record of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were that it was specifically a reconvention of that closed in 1707. That was not challenged at the time.
It probably flattered those who drafted the text to suppose direct continuity from the old Scottish Parliament. That doesn't change the fact that Westminster remains, for the time being, supreme.
Until that changes, the Scottish Parliament is a subordinate body, which enjoys only the rights and responsibilities granted it. If that were not the case then no arguments about independence would need to be had, because it could enter or withdraw from any agreements that it liked.
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
"the government"?
The English-approved one?
Just think about that assertion you have made.
So you're saying that if Scotland had a massive damascene conversion and elected 40 Tory MPs in the next election that they'd have no say in the government? It's a view.
Other way round. The Scots since the mid-1950s rarely get the UK governments they vote for. So to speak, as you say, only if they vote the way the rUK lets them.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
I personally am highly concerned and I take a lot of precautions to keep my data away. I dont have a facebook or twitter. I always use pseudonymns and a different one for each site. I often use Tor or vpns. I opted out of my medical data being on the spine. I dont routinely carry a phone its either in the office or at home. I dont use apps. I will not cooperate with track and trace.
Sadly governments are always however seeing our data as ours and selling it off. Yes it worries me but everyone tells me I am paranoid
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ten years ago - and that was a PM who would never call himself Scottish, of a Unionist party.
Now? Very different situation. Not a bonkers argument at all.
Scottish people seem quite keen on electing SNP MP's instead of Labour and Tory ones at present. That's fine, but it's then considerably less likely they'll form part of the UK Government, as their purpose is the break up of the UK.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Not only do they keep the data they keep the intellectual property too. I cannot see why that is compatible with the Data Protection Act, where data can only be kept for explicit purposes, and that requires consent.
If this goes ahead, I will not co-operate with this agency. My medical (and relevant family) data is shared with medical professionals for one purpose and one purpose only, to provide me with medical treatment. It is not for use by McKinsey or any other private company for some unspecified purpose.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
And his predecessor was born in Scotland.
In the last 20 years (so what 5 Scottish generations) we've had Scots as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Defence Secretary to name but a few.
Now permanently banned by Mr Caneron's changes. EVEL, and how no mere Scot shoudl ever have one of the great offices of state - certainly PM, Chancellor and Home Sec, and in practice the others too.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
"the government"?
The English-approved one?
Just think about that assertion you have made.
So you're saying that if Scotland had a massive damascene conversion and elected 40 Tory MPs in the next election that they'd have no say in the government? It's a view.
The 12 Scottish Tory MPs elected in 2017 had less say than the 10 DUP MPs.
Cummings and Gove and their (laudable in most circumstances) determination to avoid grade inflation have got their hands all over this I think - Williamson is just the fall guy.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Are you sure?
I think the state aid, competition and financial services regimes of the EU would (and will) look very different without us around.
We opposed a lot of the duff regulations, especially wrt mifid II and solvency II and they still went through largely unchanged other than a few token differences. We opposed the ill advised BRDD and that's now on the statute book. State aid I know less about, but I know that it's treated a a set of guidelines by some countries and rules by others which makes having them a bit rubbish.
I also think all EU regulations should come with a gigantic asterisk because the ECJ can and will adjust their interpretation to suit the political agenda. The Apple/Ireland ruling was the first time in absolutely ages they didn't, though it would have been tough given the Irish case put forwards that it can't have been state aid because the no tax deal is available to any company, international or Irish.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
You had Gordon Brown, not our fault he was useless.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I'm wondering if there is a terminologlical issue. There is a difference between a Scot by birth (although the UK state dfoes not recognise this distinction, except for who records the birth) and a person representing a Scottish Westminster constituency. Mr Gove is an example of the former, representing an English constituency; Mr Leonard an English-born MP for a Scottish constituency.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
And his predecessor was born in Scotland.
In the last 20 years (so what 5 Scottish generations) we've had Scots as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Defence Secretary to name but a few.
The fundamental problem is that England has committed the unforgivable sin of being ten times the size of Scotland. So, if you're Scottish and you've made up your mind that your country is ignored and dominated, then all you have to do is point at the composition of the House of Commons.
It would not, frankly, matter if every member of the cabinet was Scottish - the malcontent fraction of Scottish opinion would always assert that they were serving only at the pleasure of the English electorate.
This particular argument cannot be countered. Even if there had been no Brexit vote, and the Prime Minister were a Scot, and Parliament moved to Glasgow, and a train loaded with a hundred tonnes of Gold were sent North from London to Edinburgh in tribute every year, the Scottish Nationalists would still find plenty to complain of and assert that those problems could only be solved with sovereignty.
They just want to go, they are close to or already beyond 50% of the Scottish electorate, and trying to stop them is a needless, useless waste of energy. The British state is over. It is done.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
"the government"?
The English-approved one?
Just think about that assertion you have made.
So you're saying that if Scotland had a massive damascene conversion and elected 40 Tory MPs in the next election that they'd have no say in the government? It's a view.
Other way round. The Scots since the mid-1950s rarely get the UK governments they vote for. So to speak, as you say, only if they vote the way the rUK lets them.
You had 1997, 2001 and 2005 from recent history. Blair went to Fettes and Brown was Scottish. You mean to say you didn't get the government you voted for, because you vote for the SNP. But again, we're back to the self fulfilling prophecy.
There's a lot of reasons to support independence, and I'm one of the people who does, but bitching about how you don't get any representation and simultaneously voting for the SNP is a bit silly really.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
"the government"?
The English-approved one?
Just think about that assertion you have made.
So you're saying that if Scotland had a massive damascene conversion and elected 40 Tory MPs in the next election that they'd have no say in the government? It's a view.
The 12 Scottish Tory MPs elected in 2017 had less say than the 10 DUP MPs.
It was their election that ensured a Tory majority. If they hadn’t been elected then Jeremy would probably have been able to put together a coalition government.
Comments
In contrast, every Italian restaurant we visited were utterly charming.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
So I don't think the narrowing of the polls has much to do with a Labour surge at all. It is almost exclusively down to disillusionment with the government and its leadership. Some non-tribal Tories, and LDs, are saying we may vote Labour now they are not clearly mad - it's the Tories now who are going a bit bonkers, especially BJ and that short-sighted mate of his (oh, and that Gavin idiot).
Once the Covid crisis abates and Labour has the chance to set out what they are for, rather than just what they are against, I would expect a significant Labour lead. This may not be for a year or so, but could be much sooner.
After depriving the Conservatives of their majority in 2024 and assuming Labour plus SNP gets to a majority (or very close), Starmer says to Sturgeon - "you support my legislation, you get your second referendum".
"I will campaign to keep the Union and if I win, I will expect your MPs to continue supporting my Government for the duration of the Parliament."
"If the Independence vote carries, I will endeavour to provide as amicable and harmonious a divorce as possible and while that period of transition to independence continues, I will expect the support of your MPs. Once we have reached the agreed day of separation, your MPs will leave Westminster and assuming I no longer have a majority, I will seek an election in the rest of the United Kingdom after which there will likely be a substantial Conservative majority."
Too easy?
These economic migrants are also present on the islands, but there the sitauation is rather different ; large numbers of Syrians and Iraqis mixed with the economic migrants, and a number of Northwest European and Greek NGO's dealing with them ; with Greece's more Western face presenting a similar hosting-point to the former jumping off-points at the Southern tip of Italy ; and, here, despite all the problems, with the Greek system accepting a higher number of asylum acceptances than the UK provides.
Quebecois secession would've carved English Canada in two and left Newfoundland and the Atlantics cut off. If Scotland goes then there are no bits of England to the North of it to be left out on a limb; it would rather cut Northern Ireland off from the rest of the country, to be sure, but I'm not sure how many people in England and Wales would be that bothered by this, to be honest.
The situation in Quebec was rescued largely by the rest of Canada love-bombing it. I'm just not sure what proportion of the population in England and Wales is prepared to plead with Scotland to stick around. I think that's a combination of benign neglect, and the awareness that they're not happy and are always complaining about something so they might as well go and do their own thing.
I don't actively want the UK to break up, but I don't believe that the political will exists to make it work again and nor do I believe that the popular will exists in Scotland even to try. So one might as well resign oneself to the inevitable, move on and look on the bright side. Besides anything else, we're a lot safer from loony leftism in England if the bloc vote from the Scottish central belt is no longer there to act as an ally.
The government have had a catastrophic time since election and have lost the Daily Mail the DT and the entire media, and yet are still in the lead. From here, even after all this farrago they could still win the next election at a canter. The bookies still make them odds on for most seats.
However, as a former specialist technology school they offer a large number of unusual courses, such as textiles which require a BTec to get on them.
So bang goes that planning.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
Is this the interview you have a clear memory of?
Good luck to the poor soul who has to write a timetable in that short a time span, even if the results had come though on time!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159096.fact-check-claim-snp-vowed-indyref-once-lifetime-opportunity/
In any case, as always, a new election and a new mandate erase everything.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/19/politics/russia-investigation-fbi-paul-manafort-donald-trump-jr-donald-trump/index.html?utm_term=image&utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2020-08-19T18:16:02&utm_medium=social
Remainers tried to convince the English that they would be an economic basket case without the EU, but so many of us were convinced that the drawbacks of the arrangement outweighed the advantages that we voted to leave anyway. Besides anything else, we could see that leaving the EU might indeed cause some damage, but the hyperbolic rhetoric over house price and currency collapses and the end of Western civilization was so much hogwash. It got the Leave voters out of a political arrangement that they had no faith in, and in other respects it was hardly the end of the world.
I think that's where the Scottish pro-independence voters are now. They don't think that leaving the UK is a panacea (and indeed I think the Scottish Government is going to get itself into a terrible pickle, trying to establish a set of largely or entirely novel institutions to tax people, pay out pensions and benefits, manage a currency, defend itself and represent the country abroad, all the while negotiating a hugely complex divorce settlement with a partner that will feel both rejected and impatient to be rid of it,) but those voters have had enough of the UK regardless. It seems unlikely that they will change their minds when it comes to a second referendum, irrespective of what party the Prime Minister of the day comes from.
The progressive case for the Union was an important element of Better Together, though more often than not it provided cover for the more gamey end of right wing Unionism. I can't see J.K. and Ewan McGregor going out on a limb for BJ. Perhaps they'll have a seance to summon Bowie?
https://vivera.com/products
https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/
A new Labour leader could attempt to keep governing propped up by Scottish votes, but he or she would risk being pulverised in England at the following election. More likely there would need to be a GNU in London, or failing that an Exclusion Act which would strip the Scottish MPs of virtually all their authority and hand the keys to No.10 back to the Tories.
UK GDP is an order of magnitude grater than Apple’s revenue.
By the time it might approach that level it would have been split up into different parts.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
Actually I'm not completely certain that Scotland would rejoin the EU as a full member - so much is going on. But trade is also important. I;m sure that EFTA would be a minimum.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/new-zealand-lockdown-unlawful-nine-days-high-court-a4528711.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1597856400
Not only do they keep the data they keep the intellectual property too. I cannot see why that is compatible with the Data Protection Act, where data can only be kept for explicit purposes, and that requires consent.
And the winners said "Vote No to keep Scotland in the EU".
Citation needed.
I think the state aid, competition and financial services regimes of the EU would (and will) look very different without us around.
Happy to be corrected if I have misremembered.
The English-approved one?
Just think about that assertion you have made.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
Now? Very different situation. Not a bonkers argument at all.
Whereas Scotland is around 1/12th of the UK population, Quebec is nearer 1/4.
Therefore you would need to win 2/3rds of the seats in Anglophone Canada to win a Federal majority.
Thus, all parties treat Quebec as a vital campaign ground rather than an afterthought.
In the last 20 years (so what 5 Scottish generations) we've had Scots as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Defence Secretary to name but a few.
Until that changes, the Scottish Parliament is a subordinate body, which enjoys only the rights and responsibilities granted it. If that were not the case then no arguments about independence would need to be had, because it could enter or withdraw from any agreements that it liked.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Sadly governments are always however seeing our data as ours and selling it off. Yes it worries me but everyone tells me I am paranoid
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
She means Trump obviously. Must be some confusion in translation.
Cummings and Gove and their (laudable in most circumstances) determination to avoid grade inflation have got their hands all over this I think - Williamson is just the fall guy.
I also think all EU regulations should come with a gigantic asterisk because the ECJ can and will adjust their interpretation to suit the political agenda. The Apple/Ireland ruling was the first time in absolutely ages they didn't, though it would have been tough given the Irish case put forwards that it can't have been state aid because the no tax deal is available to any company, international or Irish.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It would not, frankly, matter if every member of the cabinet was Scottish - the malcontent fraction of Scottish opinion would always assert that they were serving only at the pleasure of the English electorate.
This particular argument cannot be countered. Even if there had been no Brexit vote, and the Prime Minister were a Scot, and Parliament moved to Glasgow, and a train loaded with a hundred tonnes of Gold were sent North from London to Edinburgh in tribute every year, the Scottish Nationalists would still find plenty to complain of and assert that those problems could only be solved with sovereignty.
They just want to go, they are close to or already beyond 50% of the Scottish electorate, and trying to stop them is a needless, useless waste of energy. The British state is over. It is done.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-cuts-sports-team-told-there-will-be-less-rugby-racing-and-live-blogs-but-womens-sport-will-remain-strength
There's a lot of reasons to support independence, and I'm one of the people who does, but bitching about how you don't get any representation and simultaneously voting for the SNP is a bit silly really.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.