Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Given the proximity of the Scottish Parliament elections Johnson’s devolution comments might not be

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 17 in General
Given the proximity of the Scottish Parliament elections Johnson’s devolution comments might not be wise – politicalbetting.com

Boris Johnson working hard to boost Scottish Tories in next May's Holyrood election – NOThttps://t.co/1Ic50l1bo2

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 4,396
    1st
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 336
    Seems an odd thing for Boris to put out there, unless it’s part of strategic plan. If it’s a strategic plan, it’s seems an odd strategic plan. It’s more like the Tories are getting themselves in a mess over this, not being able to get a handle on the problem. They seem fired up, very determined to nail the maggot to the wall.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,311
    edited November 17
    He's a clown and a good one. But an absolutely useless PM
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    The discussion on the previous thread has been most interesting - not least the perspectives of the non-Scots. However, I don't remember if anyone has mentioned th epoint that the Internal Markets Bill is itself a direct diminution of devolution, happening right now, and if it is pushed through will make even more mincemeat of the Sewel Convention. Again, right before the Holyrood election. ,
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    gealbhan said:

    Seems an odd thing for Boris to put out there, unless it’s part of strategic plan. If it’s a strategic plan, it’s seems an odd strategic plan. It’s more like the Tories are getting themselves in a mess over this, not being able to get a handle on the problem. They seem fired up, very determined to nail the maggot to the wall.

    Even if they crack the plaster?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,624

    FPT:

    Scottish Independence is highly analogous to Brexit. It would be, in the short term, an economic and political catastrophe.

    Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.

    I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.

    But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.

    But wouldn't Sindy be splitting off (the UK) and joining on (to the EU)?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779

    FPT:

    Scottish Independence is highly analogous to Brexit. It would be, in the short term, an economic and political catastrophe.

    Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.

    I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.

    But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.

    But wouldn't Sindy be splitting off (the UK) and joining on (to the EU)?
    There's a very nice Zugzwang there. The more Mr J facilitates trade with the EU, the fewer problems on the future Anglo-Scottish border, so that's a very large chunk of Project Fear Mk 2 can go in the bin at once. But if he doesn't, he ends up starving and impoverishing his own voters in England (you can write off Scotland).
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998

    FPT:

    Scottish Independence is highly analogous to Brexit. It would be, in the short term, an economic and political catastrophe.

    Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.

    I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.

    But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.

    It certainly isn't the answer to every ill.
    But sometimes it is the right answer. The trick is to distinguish one from the other, and to argue persuasively to that middle third for whom the answer is not obvious, one way or the other.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,311
    Scott_xP said:
    Sending Jenrick out to say he didn't mean what he said thus creating two liars out of one?
  • Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.
  • FPT:

    Scottish Independence is highly analogous to Brexit. It would be, in the short term, an economic and political catastrophe.

    Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.

    I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.

    But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.

    But wouldn't Sindy be splitting off (the UK) and joining on (to the EU)?
    Yes. Scotland would be welcomed (surely) back into the EU and join the Euro. Which then puts even more pressure onto England regarding its tossery regarding customs....
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 4,027
    gealbhan said:

    Seems an odd thing for Boris to put out there, unless it’s part of strategic plan. If it’s a strategic plan, it’s seems an odd strategic plan. It’s more like the Tories are getting themselves in a mess over this, not being able to get a handle on the problem. They seem fired up, very determined to nail the maggot to the wall.

    What if the maggot is the one holding the hammer?
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    I claim he's wrong.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 4,027

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    I am genuinely outraged, and he is wrong. Hope that clarifies things.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 54,298
    PM in 'being a ****ing idiot' shock*.


    *Yes, I know. It's not a shock. Just a lamentable habit of underwhelming incompetence.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    I claim he's wrong.
    Me too, ie that Mr J is wrong.
  • Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    He is wrong. Its not devolution that's the issue, its Brexit. His excellency the Essicks massiv likes to come on here banging the table about once in a generation referenda. And had we not shagged up Brexit I'm sure it would have been once in a generation.

    But here we are with utter chaos ensuing and a lot more imminent. With a UK government largely telling Scotland to stick it. It has single-handedly made independence not just an idea that needs to be revisted but should be actively pursued by many people who voted No last time.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    I think it depends on one's perspective. If you support independence then devolution has been very successful, if you don't then it has been a failure.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 560

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Our resident Tory troll strikes again..

  • johntjohnt Posts: 52
    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,619

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    I join the wise PBers who claim he is wrong
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    Cicero said:

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Our resident Tory troll strikes again..

    In fairness he does not hold to Tory doctrine re the Union (or is there one? I wonder.)
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 336

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    He’s wrong.

    And you are a free, independent libertarian minded thinker. You don’t have to be a wrong headed Tory troll on this too.

    Watch the Tories in the commons, every other sentence regardless of topic is “the differential here is we are the only party of the union who will protect the union”.

    But they are the same people, proudly singing British patriotic songs in the commons who have taught us the first rule of brexit. Nations need to keep their identity, their culture, their democracy, their sovereignty, and where these are smothered by any union with other nations, with so much surrender of your democracy and sovereignty into the pool, so some far away government, with partisan policy agenda spoken in a language other than your own, now rules over you, you vote and everything stays the same, building up your desire to take back control - something has to change.

    Ignore the last indyref vote, except it’s dress rehearsal Scotnats learnt from, brexit has changed everything. To say brexit changed nothing in this regard is in denial.
  • johntjohnt Posts: 52
    edited November 17

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Personally I think power is best executed as close to the people as possible. So for me there is no question he is without question wrong.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,619
    PB Poll

    Hes wrong 4
    Depends 1
    He is ****ing idiot' 1
    He is right Philip
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 44,308
    edited November 17

    FPT:

    Scottish Independence is highly analogous to Brexit. It would be, in the short term, an economic and political catastrophe.

    Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.

    I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.

    But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.

    "Coming together" is such a disingenuous phrase. Nine times out of ten what it really means is "other people should put aside what they want and let me have what I want".

    We don't need to "come together", we need people to look after themselves first and foremost. Splitting off into smaller but more adaptable units is better for that.

    Division leads to competition and is a strength not a weakness.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,619

    PB Poll

    Hes wrong 4
    Depends 1
    He is ****ing idiot' 1
    He is right Philip

    He wrong now 6
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,311

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Worthy of a trifecta. A like from felix Sandpit and Bluestblue.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,624
    He's very definitely wrong
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,619
    Roger said:

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Worthy of a trifecta. A like from felix Sandpit and Bluestblue.
    and the 3 Seans
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,619

    He's very definitely wrong

    7
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,624
    Roger said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Sending Jenrick out to say he didn't mean what he said thus creating two liars out of one?
    Or you could send Sharma out to say he didn't say what he said.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,619

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Apart from the 7 who have replied so far to say he is
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 336
    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
  • johntjohnt Posts: 52

    We don't need to "come together", we need people to look after themselves first and foremost. Splitting off into smaller but more adaptable units is better for that.

    Division leads to competition and is a strength not a weakness.

    War is ‘competition’. That is the logical conclusion of the principle of the survival of the fittest. Those who want to live in a world riddled with conflict and division might like to reflect on Ghandi’s observation that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,258

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Most have given up responding to you itscacwsare ofbtime
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 15,691
    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    No mock outrage here, but it has all gone "Pete Tong" since Sindyref1.

    Johnson could be right about it all being Blair's fault. If it was Blair who had called and lost the Brexit referendum. If it had been Blair who posutered until the eleventh hour to reach a post Brexit trade deal. If it had been Blair who had mismanaged Covid-19 post Lockdown 1. Yes it would all have been Blair's fault.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 336
    edited November 17

    gealbhan said:

    Seems an odd thing for Boris to put out there, unless it’s part of strategic plan. If it’s a strategic plan, it’s seems an odd strategic plan. It’s more like the Tories are getting themselves in a mess over this, not being able to get a handle on the problem. They seem fired up, very determined to nail the maggot to the wall.

    What if the maggot is the one holding the hammer?
    That’s deep. But then your avatar is deep as well so we should expect nothing less
  • Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Apart from the 7 who have replied so far to say he is
    And the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. (And me, come to think of it.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
  • Surely we need the Essicks Massiv on here to tell us all that not only is Johnson is right but that instead of disbanding the Black Watch they are to be sent straight to Holyrood to arrest the SNP leadership and summarily execute them. Because that's what happens in a proper democracy like The UK England
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624
    Hungary blocking EU budget over "rule of law" requirements.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,950
    It's a mistake for liberals to replace scepticism with certainty IMO.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 4,027
    gealbhan said:

    gealbhan said:

    Seems an odd thing for Boris to put out there, unless it’s part of strategic plan. If it’s a strategic plan, it’s seems an odd strategic plan. It’s more like the Tories are getting themselves in a mess over this, not being able to get a handle on the problem. They seem fired up, very determined to nail the maggot to the wall.

    What if the maggot is the one holding the hammer?
    That’s deep. But then your avatar is deep as well so we should expect nothing less
    Thank you. I think?
    My avatar was assigned to me by the site, I've never given it any thought up to now and indeed had to scroll down to see what it looks like!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
    Indeed, Cameron expended all of Labour's political capital in Scotland. A stroke of Machiavellian genius that Starmer will be wise to, when Johnson makes the pleas for pro- Union support.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And there is another difference. We didn't have supranational political parties, so that there wasno issue of a party splitting in two along the English Channel and North Channel. In this case, the SNP and Greens are 100% Scottish. No skins off their noses. But the Tories, LDs and (despite the name) Labour most of all are organizationally UK based. At what point do we see internal splits in those who decide, e.g. it's better to be a Scottish Tory rather than a Unionist Tory? Or are they, for instance, personally too desperate to follow George Foulkes and Ruth Davidson into thje Lords?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,231

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    He is wrong .
    Shame that you always seem to defend him .
    Especially , as I think you have said you believe Scotland should have another referendum on Independence.
    I think Brexit makes another referendum inevitable as the last one was on the basis the UK remained in the EU.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 1,577
    edited November 17

    FPT:

    Scottish Independence is highly analogous to Brexit. It would be, in the short term, an economic and political catastrophe.

    Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.

    I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.

    But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.

    "Coming together" is such a disingenuous phrase. Nine times out of ten what it really means is "other people should put aside what they want and let me have what I want".

    We don't need to "come together", we need people to look after themselves first and foremost. Splitting off into smaller but more adaptable units is better for that.

    Division leads to competition and is a strength not a weakness.
    But, except for hardcore libertarians who think that Ron Swanson is some sort of commie, or for actual commies, there's a balance to be stuck.

    One one hand, individuals and families are nimble and competition of ideas can strengthen everyone.

    On the other, individuals and families are vulnerable to slings and arrows of life, and we're stronger together than apart.

    The important questions are to do with that tradeoff, and the balance point might land in different places for different things that need to be done. In normal times, I don't want my groceries delivered as a state-standard parcel (though it was a damn good idea for vulnerable people back in the worst of The Emergency). Equally, I don't want to be personally responsible for protecting my family from the Russian Threat. Different-sized horses for different courses.

    That's an argument for multiple layers of co-operation, multiple layers of government, doing things appropriate to their scale. And for boring discussion about what appropriate scales are.

    But that's less fun than going on about freedom, isn't it?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 1,806
    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 1,632

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Apart from the 7 who have replied so far to say he is
    Make it 8
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,950
    I agree with Johnson about devolution.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 1,806
    Yorkcity said:

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    He is wrong .
    Shame that you always seem to defend him .
    Especially , as I think you have said you believe Scotland should have another referendum on Independence.
    I think Brexit makes another referendum inevitable as the last one was on the basis the UK remained in the EU.
    Actually, on this, Johnson was not wrong. Devolution has created a half-way house where nobody is really happy. Either we should have kept the previous system where Scotland (and Wales) were given disproportionate representation in the HoC to part compensate for England's dominance, or there should be full independence. Devolution has just created instability. A Federal system can work in places like the US and Canada, or Germany, because their countries were founded on the principles of autonomous areas. But note that not a huge amount of other countries, at least in Europe, have such a Federal system because their histories play against it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 15,691
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
    This issue is perhaps as difficult for Labour to navigate as Brexit was. If Johnson denies Sindy2, I think they will oppose that. But that's the easy bit. What is trickier is how to position and campaign for the referendum itself. They'll be hoping that Johnson does not cave - since if there is no referendum in this parliament they will not have to grapple with it. So this for me is the key question we have to answer in order to solve the betting puzzle. Will Johnson grant a Sindy2 or will he not?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
    Indeed, Cameron expended all of Labour's political capital in Scotland. A stroke of Machiavellian genius that Starmer will be wise to, when Johnson makes the pleas for pro- Union support.
    Someone - was it you? - made the suggestion yesterday that Mr Murray might end up fronting the Union campaignj in Scotland. He's certainly famous for his UJ suit but he is a canny operator. I'm not sure how he gets on with Mr Starmer - but he is not, I think, a fan of Mr Leonard. Who also has to have a voide in the matter.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence/ian-murray-union-flag-jacket-photo-result-few-ciders-glastonbury-1375948

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/we-need-to-talk-about-ian/
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    MrEd said:

    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
    "Short term pain for long term gain" was a slogan of the Brexiteers around here after June 2016. They seem to have stopped using it for some reason.

    The Scots need to start pricing stuff in Euros now and taking both currencies so they can ditch the Pound. They will still be tied to England because they are on the same island but they would be going in the right direction of travel. Our future lies with Europe, not with Boris and Bluekip.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,282
    Corbyn backs down.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-concerns-were-not-exaggerated

    That's pretty well a full retraction. For once Corbyn's done the right thing.

    I don't know whether it still requires a disciplinary hearing to lift his suspension, or whether David Evans can unilaterally, given that he suspended Corbyn in the first place.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 4,396

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    He's wrong. But anyway, it's like someone calling their spouse pig ugly. It may be true, but that isn't really the point.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    MrEd said:

    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
    Didn't have the EU then, mind.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    Apart from the 7 who have replied so far to say he is
    And the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. (And me, come to think of it.)
    Johnson is right. Devolution is a disaster if you care about the Union. Odd then that he seems to be doing his best to accelerate the breakup of the UK.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 54,298
    edited November 17
    Mrs C, your reasoning is flawed because you attribute knowing intent to the infantile flailing of the Prime Minister.

    Just remember this: there's a saying a man only has enough blood in his body to run his brain or his penis, but not both at the same time. The PM is unusual in that one of those organs is never off, and the other is never on.

    Edited extra bit: corrected an error.
  • MrEd said:

    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
    "Short term pain for long term gain" was a slogan of the Brexiteers around here after June 2016. They seem to have stopped using it for some reason.

    The Scots need to start pricing stuff in Euros now and taking both currencies so they can ditch the Pound. They will still be tied to England because they are on the same island but they would be going in the right direction of travel. Our future lies with Europe, not with Boris and Bluekip.
    Not sure about right now but its the obvious route forward. I think the Euro is still a bit marmite which is why the SNP haven't committed. But as we get past tipping point where its clearly a Yes majority people will need to see the proposed alternative to the UK. The proposal is EU membership and EU membership will entail joining the Euro. And as Scotland has a positive pro-migration need why jot symbolically join Schengen as well.

    Sturgeon could open a conversation with Barnier now. To put the shits up the Johnson government...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 43,213

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    The politics is atrocious - so in that sense "wrong"

    The analysis on the other hand - perhaps those claiming he's wrong could point to superior outcomes in Scotland for Health, Education or Ferry building, for example?

    All of them devolved.

    All of them "closer to the people".

    All of them better outcomes?

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624

    Corbyn backs down.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-concerns-were-not-exaggerated

    That's pretty well a full retraction. For once Corbyn's done the right thing.

    I don't know whether it still requires a disciplinary hearing to lift his suspension, or whether David Evans can unilaterally, given that he suspended Corbyn in the first place.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 1,806

    MrEd said:

    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
    "Short term pain for long term gain" was a slogan of the Brexiteers around here after June 2016. They seem to have stopped using it for some reason.

    The Scots need to start pricing stuff in Euros now and taking both currencies so they can ditch the Pound. They will still be tied to England because they are on the same island but they would be going in the right direction of travel. Our future lies with Europe, not with Boris and Bluekip.
    I think now full independence is probably better and, as you said, take the pain. Honestly, I don't think Sturgeon wants to do that as it would undermine the dominance of the SNP so far better (from her side) to have this perpetual grievance against London for not allowing another referendum.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649

    MrEd said:

    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
    "Short term pain for long term gain" was a slogan of the Brexiteers around here after June 2016. They seem to have stopped using it for some reason.

    The Scots need to start pricing stuff in Euros now and taking both currencies so they can ditch the Pound. They will still be tied to England because they are on the same island but they would be going in the right direction of travel. Our future lies with Europe, not with Boris and Bluekip.
    Not sure about right now but its the obvious route forward. I think the Euro is still a bit marmite which is why the SNP haven't committed. But as we get past tipping point where its clearly a Yes majority people will need to see the proposed alternative to the UK. The proposal is EU membership and EU membership will entail joining the Euro. And as Scotland has a positive pro-migration need why jot symbolically join Schengen as well.

    Sturgeon could open a conversation with Barnier now. To put the shits up the Johnson government...
    I agree.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,842
    The Union made sense at one time. If it is to endure then those in favour of it need to make the substantive arguments for why it makes sense for all its constituent parts now. That is what is missing.

    Pointing out the problems with leaving or why devolution is not optimal are not really making the substantive positive arguments. It’s the same issue as bedevilled the pro-Remain side in the Brexit debate.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649

    Mrs C, your reasoning is flawed because you attribute knowing intent to the infantile flailing of the Prime Minister.

    Just remember this: there's a saying a man only has enough blood in his body to run his brain or his penis, but not both at the same time. The PM is unusual in that one of those organs is never off, and the other is never on.

    Edited extra bit: corrected an error.

    On that basis, women's brains must be powered all the time ;)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
    This issue is perhaps as difficult for Labour to navigate as Brexit was. If Johnson denies Sindy2, I think they will oppose that. But that's the easy bit. What is trickier is how to position and campaign for the referendum itself. They'll be hoping that Johnson does not cave - since if there is no referendum in this parliament they will not have to grapple with it. So this for me is the key question we have to answer in order to solve the betting puzzle. Will Johnson grant a Sindy2 or will he not?
    A further difference with Brexit is that it was tyhe UK Parliament which moved to allow the referendum. Not the EU one. So it makes the decision of Mr Johnson easier - it's not the SNP deciding on a referendum.

    The other variable to condier when betting is legal. That side hasn't been worked through yet, despite claims. Scots Law is not the same as English. We've seen that over the rorogation of Parliament. The shock in some elements in PB and the Tory Party was palpable at the very idea that the two systems (and NIrish law) had the same status. And Mr J is being reported as wanting to shut down the Supreme Court. Where does that leave the arbitration except by acts of the Westminster Pmt - which is the entire point at issue?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,293
    He's wrong.
    And crap with it which is worse.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779

    MrEd said:

    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
    "Short term pain for long term gain" was a slogan of the Brexiteers around here after June 2016. They seem to have stopped using it for some reason.

    The Scots need to start pricing stuff in Euros now and taking both currencies so they can ditch the Pound. They will still be tied to England because they are on the same island but they would be going in the right direction of travel. Our future lies with Europe, not with Boris and Bluekip.
    Not sure about right now but its the obvious route forward. I think the Euro is still a bit marmite which is why the SNP haven't committed. But as we get past tipping point where its clearly a Yes majority people will need to see the proposed alternative to the UK. The proposal is EU membership and EU membership will entail joining the Euro. And as Scotland has a positive pro-migration need why jot symbolically join Schengen as well.

    Sturgeon could open a conversation with Barnier now. To put the shits up the Johnson government...
    It's highly symbolic that the French have opened a whacking great consulate on one of the most improtant crossroads in Edinburgh. Almost next to the High Kirk of St Giles, and with a splendid bistro (so DavidL and I think).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 15,691
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And there is another difference. We didn't have supranational political parties, so that there wasno issue of a party splitting in two along the English Channel and North Channel. In this case, the SNP and Greens are 100% Scottish. No skins off their noses. But the Tories, LDs and (despite the name) Labour most of all are organizationally UK based. At what point do we see internal splits in those who decide, e.g. it's better to be a Scottish Tory rather than a Unionist Tory? Or are they, for instance, personally too desperate to follow George Foulkes and Ruth Davidson into thje Lords?
    Yep, there are those factors in play too. The politics are complex.

    The big similarity imo is in the top level political dynamic. You have somebody calling for an early public vote on something they think they will win. And you have those fearing and opposing that outcome with the choice of going for it and joining battle, or denying the vote and hoping the impetus falls way but taking the risk that the opposite happens - that a denial of Sindy only fuels the desire for it.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,770

    Corbyn backs down.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-concerns-were-not-exaggerated

    That's pretty well a full retraction. For once Corbyn's done the right thing.

    I don't know whether it still requires a disciplinary hearing to lift his suspension, or whether David Evans can unilaterally, given that he suspended Corbyn in the first place.

    This lot are going to be etiolated liberals with insufficient zeal.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,820

    If you look at why devolution was brought in and what it was meant to achieve then there can be little doubt that it is a total failure. That failure is definitely Blair's fault.

    It has just given a platform for grievance and worse, widened the gap in the methods of governance between different parts of the UK.

    Unfortunately for Boris, it is a one way ratchet, and impossible to reverse, so criticising it gets you nowhere. The only solution is to come up with a plan for the whole UK.

    Yes, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. I think that needs to be recognised and as I said yesterday, the UK needs to become a looser union to survive which means revenue raising powers for all devolved nations and even the ability to run pretty substantial deficits financed by local taxpayers rather than Westminster.

    It's not where I would want to go but it seems inevitable at this point in time. It's independence in all but name with Westminster holding defence, trade and foreign policy in reserve.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,205

    Corbyn backs down.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-concerns-were-not-exaggerated

    That's pretty well a full retraction. For once Corbyn's done the right thing.

    I don't know whether it still requires a disciplinary hearing to lift his suspension, or whether David Evans can unilaterally, given that he suspended Corbyn in the first place.

    This would be truly excellent. A social democrat centre left party called Labour, combined with a single alternative party of the left sounds great. Shame there is no prospect of it happening.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,995
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
    Indeed, Cameron expended all of Labour's political capital in Scotland. A stroke of Machiavellian genius that Starmer will be wise to, when Johnson makes the pleas for pro- Union support.
    Someone - was it you? - made the suggestion yesterday that Mr Murray might end up fronting the Union campaignj in Scotland. He's certainly famous for his UJ suit but he is a canny operator. I'm not sure how he gets on with Mr Starmer - but he is not, I think, a fan of Mr Leonard. Who also has to have a voide in the matter.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence/ian-murray-union-flag-jacket-photo-result-few-ciders-glastonbury-1375948

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/we-need-to-talk-about-ian/
    'Who also has to have a voide in the matter'

    A telling typo.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,293
    edited November 17
    Deleted. Repeat.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
    Indeed, Cameron expended all of Labour's political capital in Scotland. A stroke of Machiavellian genius that Starmer will be wise to, when Johnson makes the pleas for pro- Union support.
    Someone - was it you? - made the suggestion yesterday that Mr Murray might end up fronting the Union campaignj in Scotland. He's certainly famous for his UJ suit but he is a canny operator. I'm not sure how he gets on with Mr Starmer - but he is not, I think, a fan of Mr Leonard. Who also has to have a voide in the matter.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence/ian-murray-union-flag-jacket-photo-result-few-ciders-glastonbury-1375948

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/we-need-to-talk-about-ian/
    'Who also has to have a voide in the matter'

    A telling typo.
    It was completely unnoticed by me - but yes, he doesn't have the same public profile as, say, Alastair Darling.
  • I don't think devolution per se is a bad thing. The bad thing is that it has been a platform for dishonest nationalists in Scotland to con people into believing they are "progressive" ( a lie) and respectable (another lie) and to perpetuate the biggest lie of all that Scotland has been disadvantaged by being a part of the UK, when in reality the Scots (and their decendents) have been massively overrepresented at all levels of government and the establishment every year since 1707.

    The big problem for Tories is that the nationalists are playing from the very same divisive playbook that Brexiteers did. Brexiteers and nationalists are rotten peas in the same nasty pod.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779

    I don't think devolution per se is a bad thing. The bad thing is that it has been a platform for dishonest nationalists in Scotland to con people into believing they are "progressive" ( a lie) and respectable (another lie) and to perpetuate the biggest lie of all that Scotland has been disadvantaged by being a part of the UK, when in reality the Scots (and their decendents) have been massively overrepresented at all levels of government and the establishment every year since 1707.

    The big problem for Tories is that the nationalists are playing from the very same divisive playbook that Brexiteers did. Brexiteers and nationalists are rotten peas in the same nasty pod.

    The Spanish have a very useful distinction between independistas and nacionalistas. This applies here.
  • MaxPB said:

    If you look at why devolution was brought in and what it was meant to achieve then there can be little doubt that it is a total failure. That failure is definitely Blair's fault.

    It has just given a platform for grievance and worse, widened the gap in the methods of governance between different parts of the UK.

    Unfortunately for Boris, it is a one way ratchet, and impossible to reverse, so criticising it gets you nowhere. The only solution is to come up with a plan for the whole UK.

    Yes, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. I think that needs to be recognised and as I said yesterday, the UK needs to become a looser union to survive which means revenue raising powers for all devolved nations and even the ability to run pretty substantial deficits financed by local taxpayers rather than Westminster.

    It's not where I would want to go but it seems inevitable at this point in time. It's independence in all but name with Westminster holding defence, trade and foreign policy in reserve.
    Defence co-operation is multinational via NATO etc anyway.

    And if the Scots and English electorates have differing views on foreign policy and trade then what purpose does it serve to keep these united in Westminster?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779
    edited November 17
    Graun feed re Slab:

    Anas Sarwar, the party’s constitutional affairs spokesperson:

    "Boris Johnson has been a disaster, not devolution.

    The truth is he and his party are now the biggest threat to the United Kingdom.

    The Scottish parliament is one of Labour’s greatest achievements. In the face of attacks on devolution from the Tories and the SNP, Labour will always be devolution’s greatest defender."

    Quite something that the Tories are seen as less Unionist than the SNP ...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,293
    edited November 17

    I don't think devolution per se is a bad thing. The bad thing is that it has been a platform for dishonest nationalists in Scotland to con people into believing they are "progressive" ( a lie) and respectable (another lie) and to perpetuate the biggest lie of all that Scotland has been disadvantaged by being a part of the UK, when in reality the Scots (and their decendents) have been massively overrepresented at all levels of government and the establishment every year since 1707.

    The big problem for Tories is that the nationalists are playing from the very same divisive playbook that Brexiteers did. Brexiteers and nationalists are rotten peas in the same nasty pod.

    If your definition of "con" is "attract the largest number of votes" then yes.
    See also Brexit, Tories.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 5,777
    Johnson is wrong, wrong, wrong.
  • algarkirk said:

    Corbyn backs down.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-concerns-were-not-exaggerated

    That's pretty well a full retraction. For once Corbyn's done the right thing.

    I don't know whether it still requires a disciplinary hearing to lift his suspension, or whether David Evans can unilaterally, given that he suspended Corbyn in the first place.

    This would be truly excellent. A social democrat centre left party called Labour, combined with a single alternative party of the left sounds great. Shame there is no prospect of it happening.

    It would be nice if the nutters of the left peeled off from the Labour party and the nutters of the right peeled off from the Tories. Sadly not going to happen as they know under FPTP they fall into obscurity. They see it as better to have one more heave for the parasite to take over the host without the electorate noticing. They managed it in the Tory Party for the time being and a while in Labour
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,231
    MrEd said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Amidst all the mock outrage about Johnson's comments I see very few people claiming he's wrong.

    He is wrong .
    Shame that you always seem to defend him .
    Especially , as I think you have said you believe Scotland should have another referendum on Independence.
    I think Brexit makes another referendum inevitable as the last one was on the basis the UK remained in the EU.
    Actually, on this, Johnson was not wrong. Devolution has created a half-way house where nobody is really happy. Either we should have kept the previous system where Scotland (and Wales) were given disproportionate representation in the HoC to part compensate for England's dominance, or there should be full independence. Devolution has just created instability. A Federal system can work in places like the US and Canada, or Germany, because their countries were founded on the principles of autonomous areas. But note that not a huge amount of other countries, at least in Europe, have such a Federal system because their histories play against it.
    I disagree an English parliament would have completed devolution in the UK.
    Then a federal system could have worked.
    However brexit and tory dominance creating the UK to leave the EU, has now made Scottish Independence inevitable.
    It seems to me many English conservatives would be happy to see the end of the union , so that they can rule England forever.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,943
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    gealbhan said:

    johnt said:

    Brexit has left Scot with a very difficult choice. Stay in a union where they are treated by the London toffs as a necessary annoyance which they don’t really want but bolsters their ego or breakaway from little England and rejoin a union where they will be treated as an equal, but which will cause some short term pain. Personally I suspect the contempt being shown by the Tories makes Scottish independence almost inevitable.

    Spot on johnty you nailed it.

    If Ireland can exist okay out the U.K. in EU, what is the argument an independent Scotland can’t as well?

    History books will show Scots got independence because of the people who not just voted for brexit, but those who didn’t yet still enabled brexit to happen without accepting they were destroying UK.

    Firstly, going ahead with a brexit built on the grounds of  identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, is in fact handing the explosives and detonators to the SNP for the same repatriation of this out of Britain into Scotland.  They can’t make the same reasoned argument in one place, where it suits them, and deny it in another, where it doesn’t. If there is a reasoned argument, and brexit principle’s have to stick to them.   
    Brexit principles point to just one honest outcome, the torys freely admit this union was always dominated by the English, their greater numbers and economic power, their distinct culture. An unequal marriage.
     
    Because secondly, just like the question where is the democracy and subsidiarity in the EU, effectively dominated by larger nations/cultures - in the EU the North in charge, the south do what they are told – is it not the same in Britain? where Britishness has always been just a term to disguise English nationalist cultural, economic and political domination over the union?
    Ireland went through nearly 60 years post-independence where it was effectively tied to the UK economically - de facto currency union, no independent stock exchange etc etc. So the example of Ireland is not great.
    "Short term pain for long term gain" was a slogan of the Brexiteers around here after June 2016. They seem to have stopped using it for some reason.

    The Scots need to start pricing stuff in Euros now and taking both currencies so they can ditch the Pound. They will still be tied to England because they are on the same island but they would be going in the right direction of travel. Our future lies with Europe, not with Boris and Bluekip.
    I think now full independence is probably better and, as you said, take the pain. Honestly, I don't think Sturgeon wants to do that as it would undermine the dominance of the SNP so far better (from her side) to have this perpetual grievance against London for not allowing another referendum.
    This was also, of course, the strategy for Eurosceptics, until the accidentally got what they wanted.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 4,027

    MaxPB said:

    If you look at why devolution was brought in and what it was meant to achieve then there can be little doubt that it is a total failure. That failure is definitely Blair's fault.

    It has just given a platform for grievance and worse, widened the gap in the methods of governance between different parts of the UK.

    Unfortunately for Boris, it is a one way ratchet, and impossible to reverse, so criticising it gets you nowhere. The only solution is to come up with a plan for the whole UK.

    Yes, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. I think that needs to be recognised and as I said yesterday, the UK needs to become a looser union to survive which means revenue raising powers for all devolved nations and even the ability to run pretty substantial deficits financed by local taxpayers rather than Westminster.

    It's not where I would want to go but it seems inevitable at this point in time. It's independence in all but name with Westminster holding defence, trade and foreign policy in reserve.
    Defence co-operation is multinational via NATO etc anyway.

    And if the Scots and English electorates have differing views on foreign policy and trade then what purpose does it serve to keep these united in Westminster?
    Agreed. If Scotland wants to be in the EU and England doesn't (and recall that Scotland wanted to stay in the EU more than England wanted to leave) then it's hard to see those preferences both accommodated within the UK. Although Denmark/Greenland perhaps provides a template, as does NI to an extent.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,995
    Carnyx said:

    I don't think devolution per se is a bad thing. The bad thing is that it has been a platform for dishonest nationalists in Scotland to con people into believing they are "progressive" ( a lie) and respectable (another lie) and to perpetuate the biggest lie of all that Scotland has been disadvantaged by being a part of the UK, when in reality the Scots (and their decendents) have been massively overrepresented at all levels of government and the establishment every year since 1707.

    The big problem for Tories is that the nationalists are playing from the very same divisive playbook that Brexiteers did. Brexiteers and nationalists are rotten peas in the same nasty pod.

    The Spanish have a very useful distinction between independistas and nacionalistas. This applies here.
    One of the oddities of this area is that the Britnat flagshaggers always end up on 'the Scots (and their decendents) have been massively overrepresented' argument, a stone cold statement that where politicians are born is more important than their political (or in this case constitutional) views. It's precisely those Blut und Boden weirdos that I want to get away from.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 7,779

    MaxPB said:

    If you look at why devolution was brought in and what it was meant to achieve then there can be little doubt that it is a total failure. That failure is definitely Blair's fault.

    It has just given a platform for grievance and worse, widened the gap in the methods of governance between different parts of the UK.

    Unfortunately for Boris, it is a one way ratchet, and impossible to reverse, so criticising it gets you nowhere. The only solution is to come up with a plan for the whole UK.

    Yes, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. I think that needs to be recognised and as I said yesterday, the UK needs to become a looser union to survive which means revenue raising powers for all devolved nations and even the ability to run pretty substantial deficits financed by local taxpayers rather than Westminster.

    It's not where I would want to go but it seems inevitable at this point in time. It's independence in all but name with Westminster holding defence, trade and foreign policy in reserve.
    Defence co-operation is multinational via NATO etc anyway.

    And if the Scots and English electorates have differing views on foreign policy and trade then what purpose does it serve to keep these united in Westminster?
    Agreed. If Scotland wants to be in the EU and England doesn't (and recall that Scotland wanted to stay in the EU more than England wanted to leave) then it's hard to see those preferences both accommodated within the UK. Although Denmark/Greenland perhaps provides a template, as does NI to an extent.
    On the NI point, why can't the Scots be in the EU too?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 54,298
    Mr. City, worth pointing out the EU referendum was due to sceptic electoral pressure.

    The desire for Scottish independence, however, rose significantly after (and due to) devolution.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    edited November 17
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    There's a Betfair market on the timing of Sindy2. Each of the years 21 thru 24 are quoted, then a bucket of 25 or later. Wide spreads and not very liquid atm - but 25 or later is clear fav at 2.2 offered.

    No bet or tip from me yet. But now the US is done I'm starting to focus on it.

    Assuming the SNP win a mandate next year it strikes me we will have a situation not dissimilar to when Johnson first started calling for a Brexit GE in 2019. The opposition and "remainer" forces then had a choice. Do they grant the election and risk losing it? Meaning game over. Or do they frustrate it? With the latter course, the hope would be that over time the impetus behind Johnson declines such that a later election is less winnable for him. The corresponding risk is that the very act of denying the election whips the public behind him all the more and the election, when it finally does come, is a slam dunk for him. Of course they ended up doing neither. Or rather a bit of both. Denied it for a few weeks. Then granted it. Then got buried.

    So here we just switch the cast. Johnson calling for a snap GE = Sturgeon calling for Sindy2. Remainers fighting Johnson and Brexit = Johnson and Westminster fighting Sindy and Sturgeon.

    I wonder what lessons each of them will draw?

    And Labour Party as a third party. What lessons will THEY draw from being used as the Tory penal battalions in 2014? And in an indyref2 where Mr Johnson has publicly trashed devolution (both verbally and legally, in the Internal Market Bill)?
    Indeed, Cameron expended all of Labour's political capital in Scotland. A stroke of Machiavellian genius that Starmer will be wise to, when Johnson makes the pleas for pro- Union support.
    Someone - was it you? - made the suggestion yesterday that Mr Murray might end up fronting the Union campaignj in Scotland. He's certainly famous for his UJ suit but he is a canny operator. I'm not sure how he gets on with Mr Starmer - but he is not, I think, a fan of Mr Leonard. Who also has to have a voide in the matter.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence/ian-murray-union-flag-jacket-photo-result-few-ciders-glastonbury-1375948

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/we-need-to-talk-about-ian/
    It was I who suggest Ian Murray would (and should) front BT2.
    The reason for this is that it'll be a cross-party platform, and I think Murray's record of solid SNP-proof re-elections in leafy Morningside will make him acceptable to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and the fact that he's Labour will put him onside with most of Labour. The Corbynite wing will have a problem, but I don't see them as being the most keen on fighting hard against independence, so even they might shrug their shoulders rather than fight it.

    The danger for the unionist side is if they can't agree on a single campaign/approach. That is a very, very real possibility given how this government is acting. The sense of "spending Tory pounds to win Labour votes" is in the bin, so there'll be some nerves on the Labour side about jumping into bed with Conservatives again.
    The Lib Dems will go along with anything, I feel. Their Scottish contingent are powerfully weird. And the last lot to think about would be the Brexit/Ukip fringe in Scotland, who would probably, by mutual agreement, just do their own thing. I hope they don't get any MAGA pretensions and organise far-right tiki-torch marches, but it could happen.

    Lastly, someone to keep an eye on in all this is the Shadow Chancellor. She could be a secret weapon in all this. She won't front it, being a resident of England these days, but if anyone is going to get on a train and go north and make a positive impact on the unionist side, it'll be her.
Sign In or Register to comment.