It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Labour's calculations change if Scotland heads out of the Union (And it's seats are gone at Westminster). First up NI. 17 seats neither the Tories nor Labour are getting; lets assume NI stays for now. Next lets assume the Lib Dems do well (No sign of that but stranger things have happened at sea) and take down every Tory target they're within 5,000 votes of. That's 12 off of the Tory total (Labour is in 2nd in the Cities). Next a good night for Plaid vs the Tories. Precisely 1 target seat, Ynys Mon. Tory seats = 14 Wales + 345 England. = 359 / 591 (650 - 59 Scottish seats) Less 18 to minor parties (Reasoning above) = 341 / 591
So Labour need to gain 46 seats just to deny the majority. That's Redcar on a 4.32% swing.
If Scotland remains, all the Scottish Tory seats could actually go on the same swing... which broadly means Labour has to gain Leigh to deny a Tory majority.
Looking at actual Labour majorities - With Scotland it's 123 gains - Which is South Ribble; without Scotland it's York outer (Again over a hundred gains) To realistically form a Gov't which is somewhere between denying a Tory majority and having your own is much harder with ~ 50 broadly anti-Tory seats (Mainly SNP) gone though.
Anecdotal evidence suggests people are returning to work, or do you really think the situation is unchanged compared to a month ago?
Shagger claimed people have started returning in large numbers. This is not true. A trickle back as demonstrated by the data is not the stampede he claimed.
They can then use the anger and grievance to stoke up support for Indyref2 to 60%+ so they win it hands down when it's eventually granted, possibly with civil disobedience along the way.
Best way forward would be to agree (and pass) a Brexit deal, come up with a new federal plan for the UK, chunk Boris as PM and hold a snap vote in the Autumn of next year.
Still might not work (50:50 Scotland stays, at best) but it's the best hope.
Anecdotal evidence suggests people are returning to work, or do you really think the situation is unchanged compared to a month ago?
Shagger claimed people have started returning in large numbers. This is not true. A trickle back as demonstrated by the data is not the stampede he claimed.
Well for starters the country is a whole lot bigger than London. I'd want to see data covering the entire UK before claiming it is a lie.
"Gozer the Gozerian... good evening. As a duly designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension."
They can then use the anger and grievance to stoke up support for Indyref2 to 60%+ so they win it hands down when it's eventually granted, possibly with civil disobedience along the way.
Best way forward would be to agree (and pass) a Brexit deal, come up with a new federal plan for the UK, chunk Boris as PM and hold a snap vote in the Autumn of next year.
Still might not work (50:50 Scotland stays, at best) but it's the best hope.
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
What sort of Government anyone "wants" is neither here nor there when deciding whether a constituent part of the UK desires to remain as part of the whole or go it's separate way.
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
So long as the Conservative hold a majority in Westminster, Nippy can posture all she wants.
Surely there has to be an end date for the Conservatives to hold the balance of power in Westminster. Next election? The one after, or the one after that, or the one after the one after that?
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
If they want to go, they can go. I hope they stay because I believe with a Labour Government we'll all be better off.
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
On that I agree but the conservatives, labour and lib dems all support the union so it would take a lot of persuasion by the SNP to see the HOC agreeing to the referendum in the first place
I expect it will not happen before 2022/23
Also the article posted earlier is spot on in regard to the complexity and negative cost to the Scots of a divorce from the union
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
Oh no, we have to have permission from the English MPs (and if necessary the Welsh), assuming that NI MPs are split down the middle.*
*Just remembered. SF are abstentionist. Make that English, and maybe the Welsh and half the NIrish MPs.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
And the key thing is that, maybe even more than B*****, this is the Big Idea. Run the country from a single room, with data piped in on screens.
It's worth thinking about why this doesn't work.
For a start, Government isn't a Mission. It doesn't have a single aim with a single target date. It has loads of conflicting aims and never ends. That's why Apollo (get people to the moon and back by 1969, no matter what) is a terrible model for government.
Second, that control room is likely to become a bunker, with the groupthink that Gove and Cummings claim they don't want.
Finally, if decisions are being made on the basis on the numbers on the screen, what about the numbers that aren't on the screen? The A Level results algorithm worked fine at big picture level. The problems were all in the individual, human level data. They're going nowhere near the screens.
On the bright side, maybe we can just shut Dom and his Diddy Doms in this room, pipe in random numbers onto the screen, and let them play to their heart's content. They might prefer it that way.
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
If they want to go, they can go. I hope they stay because I believe with a Labour Government we'll all be better off.
Not really an answer though.....what do you see as the benefit to scotland staying in the uk to both sides. I am genuinely curious not trying to wind you up. I assume you think with a labour government the rump uk will be better off anyway so whats the advantage to us of scotland staying. Given the scots don't seem to rate labour I don't think you can claim that as a benefit for scotland if they stay
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
We've now got a distinct band of Remainers who having lost all hope of stopping Brexit are gleefully anticipating Scexit as "punishment" for the UK voting for Brexit. Sadly in the event of Scexit it will be Scottish residents who suffer, while Brexit voters will be unaffected.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
With whom?
A solid unionist from the North of the UK, like Lisa Nandy.
The one who went on, rather unfortunately, about strategies to "beat" [edit: verb changed to correct case] the SNP as shown by the example of the Madrid government and Catalonia?
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
I respectively disagree
I hope you are right.
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
I respectively disagree
I hope you are right.
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
Why do you want to save the union? Same question as I asked CHB. I am still curious
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Anyone who lets the heart rule the head comes to regret it eventually.
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
Off topic
Uncalled for rudeness there if you don't mind me saying so.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Anyone who lets the heart rule the head comes to regret it eventually.
And the key thing is that, maybe even more than B*****, this is the Big Idea. Run the country from a single room, with data piped in on screens.
It's worth thinking about why this doesn't work.
For a start, Government isn't a Mission. It doesn't have a single aim with a single target date. It has loads of conflicting aims and never ends. That's why Apollo (get people to the moon and back by 1969, no matter what) is a terrible model for government.
Second, that control room is likely to become a bunker, with the groupthink that Gove and Cummings claim they don't want.
Finally, if decisions are being made on the basis on the numbers on the screen, what about the numbers that aren't on the screen? The A Level results algorithm worked fine at big picture level. The problems were all in the individual, human level data. They're going nowhere near the screens.
On the bright side, maybe we can just shut Dom and his Diddy Doms in this room, pipe in random numbers onto the screen, and let them play to their heart's content. They might prefer it that way.
Also. If you hire a team to make decisions based on numbers on a screen what happens when there aren't any numbers to react to?
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
Personally it is a family issue (all Scots on my wife's side) and that I lived in Scotland and the borders for many years and have a great affection for the people and the union
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Anyone who lets the heart rule the head comes to regret it eventually.
True but think of a head over heart argument that would win in Scotland - 2014 was won because by economics which Brexit is going to destroy as a justification.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Anyone who lets the heart rule the head comes to regret it eventually.
Frankly that is total balls andy.....you marry for money (the head) you will live to regret it. You have a choice of two jobs both pay you enough money to live on comfortably. One pays twice what the other does but the other you would enjoy while the one paying twice would be dull, tedious and hateful I would say take the lower paying everytime.
Merely two ways the heart ruling the head is better
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
Even the 50+ is just 'projected'! In reality - the thing we live in - they have 48 MPs today, and presume they can dictate terms to the governing party with an overall majority in Parliament and 7.5x their seat total. Er, no, that's not how numbers work.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
I respectively disagree
I hope you are right.
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
Why do you want to save the union? Same question as I asked CHB. I am still curious
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
I respectively disagree
I hope you are right.
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
Why do you want to save the union? Same question as I asked CHB. I am still curious
Better together!
Thats a slogan not a reason, are you Boris Johnson in disguise?
Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.
Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.
Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.
Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.
Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.
Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?
Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.
I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.
There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.
I've always thought Trump had more in common with Latin American strongmen (particularly the kinds with excessive numbers of medals) than pretty much any other type of leader, so are you sure she didn't say she wanted the US to be more like those countries?
It is astonishing how Trump critics really do let their emotions do the talking. All sense and analysis goes out the window simply because Trump doesn't follow political etiquette.
Trump is a democratically elected president subject to the same constitutional constraints as every other US president. That is a fact.
Further constraints on his power happen in mid term elections two years into his first presidency, and if he wins into his second presidency. He could quite easily be a complete lame duck two years from now.
These are facts and not opinions.
South American Dictator. Seriosuly mate gimme a break.
Trump has as much respect for democracy as a South American dictator. Yes there are constraints under the US constitution but that merely serves to limit what he can put into effect, not what wants to achieve. Those limits are themselves being tested to breaking point in an era of supine politically-appointed judges. Regardless on whether he succees, I judge Trump on his motives, not on his ability to put his plans into effect.
His intention is absolutely to do whatever it takes to win, including subverting the democratic institutions of the US if necessary. To add to all the other strategies at voter suppression, he is now making brazen attempts to disrupt the US postal service's ability to deliver postal votes, so as to prevent votes being cast or from being counted in time if they are. Whether or not he gets away with it is besides the point, and the margins are such that a small impact could be enough for him. Stopping your opponents votes from counting is right up there with stuffing ballot boxes with extra votes in my book.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
I respectively disagree
I hope you are right.
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
Why do you want to save the union? Same question as I asked CHB. I am still curious
Better together!
Thats a slogan not a reason, are you Boris Johnson in disguise?
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
Off topic
Uncalled for rudeness there if you don't mind me saying so.
CHB appeared to be under the impression that 50 MPs in Westminster could decide UK government policy - I was merely pointing out that that is not the case.
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
*It's not its, perhaps your grammar needs some work.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
I respectively disagree
I hope you are right.
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
I respectively disagree
I hope you are right.
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
Why do you want to save the union? Same question as I asked CHB. I am still curious
Better together!
Thats a slogan not a reason, are you Boris Johnson in disguise?
Sadly no, I have slept with far, far fewer women.
shrugs don't engage then. I asked a serious question first you try slogans then deflection. May I assume there is no reason you really think scotland should remain in the uk except 300 years of history? Are you the husband that says you have put up with me for 40 years why divorce now?
Trump having a TIA was speculated at the time, but that's not what the story earlier was about, that was about Pence being ready if Trump needed a general anesthesia. Trump does seem to have let the cat out of the bag.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Anyone who lets the heart rule the head comes to regret it eventually.
True but think of a head over heart argument that would win in Scotland - 2014 was won because by economics which Brexit is going to destroy as a justification.
Not really. If Brexit happens, with some sort of significant border, the Scots will have to chose between continuing to be part of a single market with which they already do about two thirds of their external trade, or putting barriers up with that market in order to pull down barriers with an EU market which amounts to perhaps one sixth of external trade. The economic argument will be paramount in justifying the status quo.
They can then use the anger and grievance to stoke up support for Indyref2 to 60%+ so they win it hands down when it's eventually granted, possibly with civil disobedience along the way.
Best way forward would be to agree (and pass) a Brexit deal, come up with a new federal plan for the UK, chunk Boris as PM and hold a snap vote in the Autumn of next year.
Still might not work (50:50 Scotland stays, at best) but it's the best hope.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
We've now got a distinct band of Remainers who having lost all hope of stopping Brexit are gleefully anticipating Scexit as "punishment" for the UK voting for Brexit. Sadly in the event of Scexit it will be Scottish residents who suffer, while Brexit voters will be unaffected.
Exactly
Yup. Amazing the Damascene conversion to Sturgeonism from various of our Remainer contingent. 'If the UK can't be as we want it, nobody can have it'. It's also worth noting those Remainers who have not made that switch - they have shown themselves to be admirably strong-minded.
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
*It's not its, perhaps your grammar needs some work.
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
As a general principle I'm opposed to creating borders between people. So I voted to Remain in the EU and would vote to Remain in the UK.
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
*It's not its, perhaps your grammar needs some work.
Punctuation.
And to the question of substance?
No point, @CarlottaVance ... when they are questioning your spelling or grammar, you know you've lost the argument.
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
As a general principle I'm opposed to creating borders between people. So I voted to Remain in the EU and would vote to Remain in the UK.
Good fences make good neighbours....its an aphorism with a lot of truth. By all means advocate no fences but dont be surprised when your neighbours do things you find offensive
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
Unionist: The SNP are rushing into an ill thought out second indy ref. Also Unionist: This has been going on for years now, yawn.
It has been going on for my lifetime of 76 years
You could hardly miss it being a child and teenager living in Berwick on Tweed in the 1950s
And Winnie Ewing winning the Hamilton by-election in 1967....I remember seeing her at the Reid Hall in Forfar.....over half a century ago. The very Tory provost asked her what the SNP's Rhodesia policy was.....she got the same answer then as you get now when you ask about currency.
Only to be expected of someone who did PPE at Oxford in the same class as Ed Davey and David Cameron. I wonder if she voted for Boris in the Oxford Union.
You could not make it up, the nepotism of this bunch of crooks is total.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
Yes I do want a Labour government and if the Scots vote significantly for independence they should have it. I do think the lesson of Brexit should be learned, though, and for independence there has to be a majority of the electorate, not just of those voting, should be required. Alternatively there should be a requirement for a 'significant' vote in favour. Rather like the EEC vote in 1975 which was 2:1 in favour. As opposed to the narrow majority in Britain's equivalent of Florida 2000.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Trading 60% of your Trade for 16% is not a downside?
Installing a customs and immigration border where there hasn't been one for over 300 years is not a downside?
Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.
Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.
Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.
Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.
Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.
Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?
Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.
I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.
There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.
I've always thought Trump had more in common with Latin American strongmen (particularly the kinds with excessive numbers of medals) than pretty much any other type of leader, so are you sure she didn't say she wanted the US to be more like those countries?
It is astonishing how Trump critics really do let their emotions do the talking. All sense and analysis goes out the window simply because Trump doesn't follow political etiquette.
Trump is a democratically elected president subject to the same constitutional constraints as every other US president. That is a fact.
Further constraints on his power happen in mid term elections two years into his first presidency, and if he wins into his second presidency. He could quite easily be a complete lame duck two years from now.
These are facts and not opinions.
South American Dictator. Seriosuly mate gimme a break.
You do know that adding the text "these are facts and not opinions" may make you feel better, but it doesn't make it so, right?
I would argue, and feel free to contradict me, that would be strongmen share three characteristics. Broadly, they do what they can to subvert three institutions in order to maintain their grip on power:
1. The Independence of the courts, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.
2. The press and the scrutiny of their actions.
3. The electoral process.
Regarding the rule of law, Trump has pardoned Roger Stone who committed criminal offences on his behalf. He has claimed that the law does not apply to him, and he could shoot someone and not be prosecuted for it. He has refused to comply with subpoenas, despite repeatedly losing in the courts. He has issued executive orders that he knew to be unconsitutional on the basis that they would be in force pending their being thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Regarding the press, he has costantly claimed "fake news" - not just over issues which are a matter of opinion, but over basic items of fact. He has also attacked the owners of newspapers or TV stations that he regards as critical economically via the government procurement systems.
And regarding the electoral process, he has attempted to prevent mail in voting via restrictions on the USPS, even though it is the states who choose how people vote.
And most seriously of all, he has not said that if he loses he will step down.
I welcome a debate with you, on which of these things you think he didn't do. And also why you think they are not behaviours more usually asociated with Latin American strongmen than Presidents of the United States.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Trading 60% of your Trade for 16% is not a downside?
Installing a customs and immigration border where there hasn't been one for over 300 years is not a downside?
You are implicitly saying that Boris Johnson is lying about the impact of the Brexit deal he is seeking.
Do you really want a labour government or even coalition and at the same time want Scotland's independence
I support Scotland staying in the UK, I just don't see how Indy Ref 2 can be turned down if the SNP win again
Genuine question. Why do you want scotland to stay. I don't mind if they stay or go personally. However I am curious why you want them to stay or anyone else for that matter. It largely seems to consist of "well we have been together 300 years"
As a general principle I'm opposed to creating borders between people. So I voted to Remain in the EU and would vote to Remain in the UK.
Good fences make good neighbours....its an aphorism with a lot of truth. By all means advocate no fences but dont be surprised when your neighbours do things you find offensive
The original point of the poem was to point out what a banal and wrong headed phrase it was.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
So what? Points still apply. In any case the sovereignty win is Day 1 and the Single Market and protections could be achieved very quickly IMO. Membership and influence might take a bit longer.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
We've now got a distinct band of Remainers who having lost all hope of stopping Brexit are gleefully anticipating Scexit as "punishment" for the UK voting for Brexit. Sadly in the event of Scexit it will be Scottish residents who suffer, while Brexit voters will be unaffected.
Usual bollox from pompous know it all unionists who peddle the lies about Scotland's budgets. Currently it is a UK budget with fake numbers and lies about what is spent in Scotland. When independent the budget will not resemble anything like the UK numbers and to pretend they do is pathetic.
I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.
No Parliament can bind its successors. If the Scots vote for a new referendum they should have it.
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
If the Scottish Parliament voted to give everyone in Scotland £10,000 would you agree to that?
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
Majority of MPs in Scotland clearly isn't enough for you is it?
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills failing you. 50+ MPs in Westminster is not a majority. Scotland is part of the UK (they affirmed that quite decisively in 2014) so the SNP need to persuade a majority of UK MPs of the merits of their case. If its as compelling as you seem to believe that shouldn't be a problem, should it? And if it is, why do you think that might be the case?
*It's not its, perhaps your grammar needs some work.
Punctuation.
And to the question of substance?
You confused It's and its, possessive vs contraction, I think you need to look at your grammar skills.
AIUI quite a number of food places are normally closed on Mondays, but have opened to take advantage of the scheme. Secondly, the Bank Holiday last year was a week earlier.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
So what? Points still apply. In any case the sovereignty win is Day 1 and the Single Market and protections could be achieved very quickly IMO. Membership and influence might take a bit longer.
I think the critical point is that the mere fact of Scotland seeking EU membership means that Brussels will be an actor in the UK divorce process, and severely limit the ability of the rUK to be punitive.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
So what? Points still apply. In any case the sovereignty win is Day 1 and the Single Market and protections could be achieved very quickly IMO. Membership and influence might take a bit longer.
Isn't membership a necessary condition for the single market?
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
I expect EU entry to take less time to negotiate than the exit itself.
I expect the Scottish Government would start simultaneous negotiations for independence from the UK and membership of the EU and they would transition seemlessly from one to the other.
Regardless, if the SNP get the majority of Westminster MPs in Scotland continuously, they get a majority in Hollyrood, I do not see how you can turn down Indy Ref 2.
What are your other conditions? Majority in Westminster? So okay then, let's flip it round, the Tories and Labour haven't got a majority in Scotland for years, why should Scotland do what they say?
Oh dear.
Let's face it, you'll just shift the goalposts to get out of an argument you've lost. Keep going, you're just pushing Scotland away.
They can then use the anger and grievance to stoke up support for Indyref2 to 60%+ so they win it hands down when it's eventually granted, possibly with civil disobedience along the way.
Best way forward would be to agree (and pass) a Brexit deal, come up with a new federal plan for the UK, chunk Boris as PM and hold a snap vote in the Autumn of next year.
Still might not work (50:50 Scotland stays, at best) but it's the best hope.
Another GE? God please no
Sorry, a snap indyref (not another GE).
This quite left wing Scottish writer & commentator largely agrees with you, but doubts BJ and his crew have the imagination to go for it.
Trump having a TIA was speculated at the time, but that's not what the story earlier was about, that was about Pence being ready if Trump needed a general anesthesia. Trump does seem to have let the cat out of the bag.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Trading 60% of your Trade for 16% is not a downside?
Installing a customs and immigration border where there hasn't been one for over 300 years is not a downside?
Sure, but at least independence does have an economic upside (EU Single Market). Brexit has no economic upside at all to offset the significant downsides. Brexit has other (IMO more important) downsides as well - in particular what we are talking about: the demise of Great Britain.
They always put the dog food salesman up as an economist and every time he has a discussion with a real economist he gets shown up as an absolute buffoon with little to no knowledge of economics. He has had more beatings than a palooka.
It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again
And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government
Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard
Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!
Not at the expense of the Union
Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all
It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.
While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won
The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?
You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have
However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels
It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over
We've now got a distinct band of Remainers who having lost all hope of stopping Brexit are gleefully anticipating Scexit as "punishment" for the UK voting for Brexit. Sadly in the event of Scexit it will be Scottish residents who suffer, while Brexit voters will be unaffected.
Usual bollox from pompous know it all unionists who peddle the lies about Scotland's budgets. Currently it is a UK budget with fake numbers and lies about what is spent in Scotland. When independent the budget will not resemble anything like the UK numbers and to pretend they do is pathetic.
Why are you running down the Scottish Economists numbers for the Scottish Government?
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
I expect EU entry to take less time to negotiate than the exit itself.
I expect the Scottish Government would start simultaneous negotiations for independence from the UK and membership of the EU and they would transition seemlessly from one to the other.
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent set of rules applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of the Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of being an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
You do realise most of your pluses involve the eu giving scotland immediate entry and even as someone that supports scottish independence I dont expect eu entry to take less that 10 to 15 years
So what? Points still apply. In any case the sovereignty win is Day 1 and the Single Market and protections could be achieved very quickly IMO. Membership and influence might take a bit longer.
I dont think most of the points you raised would appear for ten years plus. I don't believe the eu will sign trade deals etc until the divorce is separated and I think once separated you might find countries like spain making very different noises. Much like countries in the eu were talking glowingly about turkish accession till they had to think about it
I say this with a heavy heart. It is over BigG. Gordon Brown saved the day in 2014 and Labour have subsequently been punished for it. Labour no longer have the support in Scotland or motivation to do that again.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
Speaking as one of the more unionists of Scots, I have to accept that independence has real upsides to offset the downsides, while Brexit is entirely downside.
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
This is poppycock, sorry.
Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.
It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.
All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.
Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
She hates Scotland , she is an emigrant and has some real hatred of her country of birth, must have been real bad given the venom against anything Scottish.
Comments
If that one gets a No vote, then that will settle it again. Until the next time the Scots vote for a new referendum.
If the Scots don't want a referendum, they shouldn't vote for a party pledging one. Quite simple really.
It should have been OK for thirty years, but Cameron's vanity EU referendum changed that.
Like Brexit, Scottish Independence is no longer about economic benefit. The heart will rule the head.
First up NI. 17 seats neither the Tories nor Labour are getting; lets assume NI stays for now.
Next lets assume the Lib Dems do well (No sign of that but stranger things have happened at sea) and take down every Tory target they're within 5,000 votes of. That's 12 off of the Tory total (Labour is in 2nd in the Cities).
Next a good night for Plaid vs the Tories. Precisely 1 target seat, Ynys Mon.
Tory seats = 14 Wales + 345 England. = 359 / 591 (650 - 59 Scottish seats)
Less 18 to minor parties (Reasoning above) = 341 / 591
So Labour need to gain 46 seats just to deny the majority. That's Redcar on a 4.32% swing.
If Scotland remains, all the Scottish Tory seats could actually go on the same swing... which broadly means Labour has to gain Leigh to deny a Tory majority.
Looking at actual Labour majorities - With Scotland it's 123 gains - Which is South Ribble; without Scotland it's York outer (Again over a hundred gains)
To realistically form a Gov't which is somewhere between denying a Tory majority and having your own is much harder with ~ 50 broadly anti-Tory seats (Mainly SNP) gone though.
They can then use the anger and grievance to stoke up support for Indyref2 to 60%+ so they win it hands down when it's eventually granted, possibly with civil disobedience along the way.
Best way forward would be to agree (and pass) a Brexit deal, come up with a new federal plan for the UK, chunk Boris as PM and hold a snap vote in the Autumn of next year.
Still might not work (50:50 Scotland stays, at best) but it's the best hope.
Constitutional matters are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. There need to be sufficient MPs in Westminster persuaded of the merits of the case. Quite simple really.
They're currently projected to win 50+ MPs in Westminster and a majority at Hollyrood, you're losing this argument
Surely there has to be an end date for the Conservatives to hold the balance of power in Westminster. Next election? The one after, or the one after that, or the one after the one after that?
I expect it will not happen before 2022/23
Also the article posted earlier is spot on in regard to the complexity and negative cost to the Scots of a divorce from the union
*Just remembered. SF are abstentionist. Make that English, and maybe the Welsh and half the NIrish MPs.
In fairness Carlotta did make the basic point!
Keir is bossing it
It's worth thinking about why this doesn't work.
For a start, Government isn't a Mission. It doesn't have a single aim with a single target date. It has loads of conflicting aims and never ends. That's why Apollo (get people to the moon and back by 1969, no matter what) is a terrible model for government.
Second, that control room is likely to become a bunker, with the groupthink that Gove and Cummings claim they don't want.
Finally, if decisions are being made on the basis on the numbers on the screen, what about the numbers that aren't on the screen? The A Level results algorithm worked fine at big picture level. The problems were all in the individual, human level data. They're going nowhere near the screens.
On the bright side, maybe we can just shut Dom and his Diddy Doms in this room, pipe in random numbers onto the screen, and let them play to their heart's content. They might prefer it that way.
Edit: but I do see your irony!
In 2016 the GOP outperformed by about 1.7 points
In 2018 the Dems outperformed by 1.1 (a rogue Rasmussen actually had the GOP ahead which skewed things somewhat)
So the last two cycles have been pretty excellent in aggregate.
Currently the polls have a 6 point Dem lead which is down on their margin in 2018
Maybe the only way to save the Union for as long as possible is for me and people like me to vote for Johnson, election, after election, after election. I want to save the Union, but I am not sure I can do that for you BigG.
https://twitter.com/smotus/status/1300818652334190592?s=19
Uncalled for rudeness there if you don't mind me saying so.
Merely two ways the heart ruling the head is better
Even the 50+ is just 'projected'! In reality - the thing we live in - they have 48 MPs today, and presume they can dictate terms to the governing party with an overall majority in Parliament and 7.5x their seat total. Er, no, that's not how numbers work.
Also Unionist: This has been going on for years now, yawn.
His intention is absolutely to do whatever it takes to win, including subverting the democratic institutions of the US if necessary. To add to all the other strategies at voter suppression, he is now making brazen attempts to disrupt the US postal service's ability to deliver postal votes, so as to prevent votes being cast or from being counted in time if they are. Whether or not he gets away with it is besides the point, and the margins are such that a small impact could be enough for him. Stopping your opponents votes from counting is right up there with stuffing ballot boxes with extra votes in my book.
You could hardly miss it being a child and teenager living in Berwick on Tweed in the 1950s
And to the question of substance?
First on economics. Scotland would gain access to the European Single Market, set against the bigger loss of the UK market. Brexit is all loss.
Scotland would gain formal influence in Europe through having a vote and other representation. We can see how valuable that has been to Ireland in achieving its desired outcomes. Scotland has no formal influence in the UK (it doesn't have representation as a country) and limited actual influence due to the relative dominance of England. Brexit means a loss of influence internationally for the UK as whole.
Scotland would gain protection by being a member of the European Union thanks to independent rules being applied objectively by the ECJ. Governance in the UK is at the whim of a Downing Street government that doesn't protect Scotland's interest.
The sovereignty win of becoming an independent state is transformationally greater than leaving a multinational body, even an important one like the European Union
And Winnie Ewing winning the Hamilton by-election in 1967....I remember seeing her at the Reid Hall in Forfar.....over half a century ago. The very Tory provost asked her what the SNP's Rhodesia policy was.....she got the same answer then as you get now when you ask about currency.
Alternatively there should be a requirement for a 'significant' vote in favour. Rather like the EEC vote in 1975 which was 2:1 in favour.
As opposed to the narrow majority in Britain's equivalent of Florida 2000.
Installing a customs and immigration border where there hasn't been one for over 300 years is not a downside?
I would argue, and feel free to contradict me, that would be strongmen share three characteristics. Broadly, they do what they can to subvert three institutions in order to maintain their grip on power:
1. The Independence of the courts, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.
2. The press and the scrutiny of their actions.
3. The electoral process.
Regarding the rule of law, Trump has pardoned Roger Stone who committed criminal offences on his behalf. He has claimed that the law does not apply to him, and he could shoot someone and not be prosecuted for it. He has refused to comply with subpoenas, despite repeatedly losing in the courts. He has issued executive orders that he knew to be unconsitutional on the basis that they would be in force pending their being thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Regarding the press, he has costantly claimed "fake news" - not just over issues which are a matter of opinion, but over basic items of fact. He has also attacked the owners of newspapers or TV stations that he regards as critical economically via the government procurement systems.
And regarding the electoral process, he has attempted to prevent mail in voting via restrictions on the USPS, even though it is the states who choose how people vote.
And most seriously of all, he has not said that if he loses he will step down.
I welcome a debate with you, on which of these things you think he didn't do. And also why you think they are not behaviours more usually asociated with Latin American strongmen than Presidents of the United States.
When independent the budget will not resemble anything like the UK numbers and to pretend they do is pathetic.
Here's a good primer.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/its-vs-its/
If you're going to sit there and attack me, "I'm not sure if its your reading or comprehension skills", then you could at least bother yourself.
I expect the Scottish Government would start simultaneous negotiations for independence from the UK and membership of the EU and they would transition seemlessly from one to the other.
What are your other conditions? Majority in Westminster? So okay then, let's flip it round, the Tories and Labour haven't got a majority in Scotland for years, why should Scotland do what they say?
Oh dear.
Let's face it, you'll just shift the goalposts to get out of an argument you've lost. Keep going, you're just pushing Scotland away.
https://twitter.com/jamiedmaxwell/status/1300490593504821250?s=20
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1299717585529982979
Why do you hate Scotland?
Scotland has *more* influence in the UK than it would have in the EU (where it'd be an even smaller fish and overruled by QMV on most issues). In the UK it has almost 10% of all UK MPs, each of which have the exact same rights and privileges as any other MP - including all the English ones. Barely 10 years ago Scots were both the PM and the Chancellor, and during the coalition Chief Secretary of the Treasury, with direct representation on the security council of the UN, the G7/8 and the G20. None of which Scotland could ever do again post-independence.
It's true at the moment as Scotland has chosen to elect largely separatist MPs. It thus has very limited representation in the UK Government as a whole. It's in this sense a feedback loop as the very election of the nationalist MPs helps create the grievances they rail against and rely upon to advance their agenda.
All this pre-dated Brexit and goes back to the 2015GE and (crucially) the politics of the preceding 18 months when independence garnered a huge head of steam.
Brexit was (and is) a convenient stick to beat the Union with but the roots run deeper. Far deeper.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17467830.snp-urged-apologise-devolved-benefits-delayed-2024/