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.
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.
It soon ends up with the "your great-great-granddad was justr as much a slave trader/imperialist as mine was" argument. Which is not very edifying (though I am glad that the wider issue has been much more aired in Scottish history of recent years, which I see is not a typical atttiude of your Ladybird book British imperialist).
And one might inquire as to whether this overrepresentation was (a) real, and (b) not simply an indication of maladministration within the UK forcing emigration or joining the army etc.
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?
Well NI isn't in the EU but it is essentially in the SM and CU. I never understood why similar arrangements couldn't have been arranged for Scotland. They would have required barriers to cross-border trade I suppose, but if the English are OK with that with respect to their largest trading partner then why shouldn't the Scots be OK too? No efforts have been made to accommodate Scottish views at any point. It is utterly shameful.
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.
Nothing lasts forever.
Labour have won a majority in England before and either they or AN Other party opposing the Tories would again in the future.
Labour currently have 202/650 UK seats (31%).
If Scotland went independent and NI unified with the Republic leaving England and Wales together like the Cricket Team then Labour would as it stands have 201/573 (37%)
If the nation became England and Wales then Labour would reposition itself seeking to win a majority of England and Wales MPs. They have done so before and would do so again eventually.
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.
Unfortunately so. Also enthusiasm for the status quo. Theres more than was present for the EU (fervour only skyrocketed afterwards) but a lot of apathy and 'too much hassle to change' rather than genuine support.
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.
It soon ends up with the "your great-great-granddad was justr as much a slave trader/imperialist as mine was" argument. Which is not very edifying (though I am glad that the wider issue has been much more aired in Scottish history of recent years, which I see is not a typical atttiude of your Ladybird book British imperialist).
And one might inquire as to whether this overrepresentation was (a) real, and (b) not simply an indication of maladministration within the UK forcing emigration or joining the army etc.
Moreover, does it really matter? Things like the slave trade, Highland clearances, the personalities of the imperial era... none of this is really that informative of Scotland's place in the world today. The issues have descended to us in 2020 as social justice, land reform, and foreign policy, and those things absolutely DO matter. But we can think about those issues without obsessing over the fucking Darien Scheme, or tales of redcoat armies marching on Stirling.
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
This was Boris doing what he has done throughout his career going back to his days in Brussels with the Telegraph. Telling his audience what they want to hear without regard for the consequences. It is habitual, learned behaviour and has served him well, both professionally and privately. Why change?
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, interesting.
I'd just raise the thought that if Mr Johnson keeps following the doctrine that devolutiuon is bad and ends up trying to close it down even more than he already is with the IMB, then that opens a chasm between his mob and Labour. Vide Mr Sarwar'[s words quoted here a little earlier. As things are, Labour will be a lot more nervous about getting into bed wiuth Mr Johnson than they were with Mr Cameron (so to speak).
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Maybe they figured damage to the PM will save the party in the long-run.
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Never been a fan of that phrase. Like many things it can be used well, but other times it is used to dismiss what are genuine problems or at least solvable ones, because they are not the biggest problem.
I bow to none in opposing the goals of Sindy backers, but who cares if it's a first world problem?
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.
"Rule ... forever" was, of course, the reasoning behind the Scottish setup, so that the dominant party (Labour) would be in perpetual power. It never occurred to Brown and Blair that the system would work for any party that got dominance at one point. So we have the SNP and it is hard to shift them thanks to Blair and Brown.
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.
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Never been a fan of that phrase. Like many things it can be used well, but other times it is used to dismiss what are genuine problems or at least solvable ones, because they are not the biggest problem.
I bow to none in opposing the goals of Sindy backers, but who cares if it's a first world problem?
Its a bizarre phrase.
We are a first world country so of course we have first world problems.
The only reason that phrase would make sense is if the wielder was claiming we aren't first world so need to deal with other issues instead. Since we are first world then its confirming it is a problem for us. What purpose does that serve?
Thinking more about Labour's position. My view, post Brexit, is that an independent Scotland is inevitable. It might be messy getting there but get there we will - for the simple reason that it is the only viable and stable destination. Nothing else works. Nothing else holds for more than a few years. So given this, perhaps what SLAB should do is get on the right side of history and flip to being a pro-indy party, with UK Labour keeping strictly to a "it's a matter for the Scots" line.
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.
"Rule ... forever" was, of course, the reasoning behind the Scottish setup, so that the dominant party (Labour) would be in perpetual power. It never occurred to Brown and Blair that the system would work for any party that got dominance at one point. So we have the SNP and it is hard to shift them thanks to Blair and Brown.
Labour did rule as part of the intended SLAB/SLD coalition, to be pedantic. The SNP have ruled as both majority and minority administrations. Perfectly easy to shift them if the majority agree. It happens a lot in local government. It also excplains how Edinburgh got the trams - because all the parties at Holyrood except the SNP insisted on it.
For example, throughout her term Thatcher's appearance evolved, hardening with power shoulders and the full "Gloriana Imperiatrix" bouffant hairdo by the end of her term - here they have her like that from the beginning. Anderson is growing on me - and the script is naughtily good - Andrew discussing a 17 year old being deflowered by older pervs in a movie script, the queen deciding to "do nothing" while Thatcher angrily demands of an aide how "doing nothing will improve the situation".
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?
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Never been a fan of that phrase. Like many things it can be used well, but other times it is used to dismiss what are genuine problems or at least solvable ones, because they are not the biggest problem.
I bow to none in opposing the goals of Sindy backers, but who cares if it's a first world problem?
Its a bizarre phrase.
We are a first world country so of course we have first world problems.
The only reason that phrase would make sense is if the wielder was claiming we aren't first world so need to deal with other issues instead. Since we are first world then its confirming it is a problem for us. What purpose does that serve?
I think it makes more sense when used on a gentle chiding level for the well off individual to have some perspective about their concerns, but like any phrase when over broadened it loses effect.
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.
The problem is that the status quo is dull. It is well known as are any flaws in it. It may work, but if it works well no one notices because people only notice things when they break or go badly wrong. No one ever said "I went to my car this morning and it started as I expected", but you will soon hear about it if the car failed to start.
Leave, OTOH, promised excitement, new adventures and cold cash upfront. "Whey-hey" as opposed to Ho hum...." and with £350m a week as well. And no Turkish invasion....
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
I agree with Johnson too. I disagreed with devolution at the time and even more so over differing covid and school exam responses. Chickens coming home to roost.
Of Johnson`s comments, Malcolm Rifkind* said today: "What he should have said is devolution has become a disaster because the Scottish national government, the SNP government in Scotland, are using the Scottish Parliament and the power they've got to try and destroy the United Kingdom"
(* by the way, my answer to the question "who is the best prime minister we never had?" - Rifkind would be number one on my list.)
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.
True , however I do not believe in referendums, we should in my opinion keep to parliamentary democracy. That is why we vote for MPs. If Scotland votes for enough Independence Mps then they should proceed.
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Have you seen what he's inflicted on Tory MPs in the North? It's not at all odd...
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.
And yet there are plenty of those in the SNP.
There certainly used to be when the Tartan Tories were a thing (my father was one of them), but the relatively rapid increase in support/membership/elected members has come very much from the progressive side. In any case these sorts are very poorly represented at a public level, can you imagine Sturgeon coming out with a fraction of the nation aggrandising bluster that's BJ's stock in trade?
Thinking more about Labour's position. My view, post Brexit, is that an independent Scotland is inevitable. It might be messy getting there but get there we will - for the simple reason that it is the only viable and stable destination. Nothing else works. Nothing else holds for more than a few years. So given this, perhaps what SLAB should do is get on the right side of history and flip to being a pro-indy party, with UK Labour keeping strictly to a "it's a matter for the Scots" line.
Stable for who? What proportion of the national debt would they start off with and where is their engine for growth?
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)?
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)?
Some polls have Labour back in second place - at least for Westminster elections. Johnson's comments might bring about some switch of pro-Union voters from Tory to Labour.
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Or a new MP is p*ssed off with the PM and wanted to get brownie points with journalists?
If Scotland does become independent a lot of the money that currently goes there will go to the North.
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.
True , however I do not believe in referendums, we should in my opinion keep to parliamentary democracy. That is why we vote for MPs. If Scotland votes for enough Independence Mps then they should proceed.
Majority of MPs from, for example, 35% of the vote, and that's a mandate? That doesn't sound at all fair.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
I agree with Johnson too. I disagreed with devolution at the time and even more so over differing covid and school exam responses. Chickens coming home to roost.
Of Johnson`s comments, Malcolm Rifkind* said today: "What he should have said is devolution has become a disaster because the Scottish national government, the SNP government in Scotland, are using the Scottish Parliament and the power they've got to try and destroy the United Kingdom"
(* by the way, my answer to the question "who is the best prime minister we never had?" - Rifkind would be number one on my list.)
I wonder if people like Rifkind ever actually stop to think about the implications of what they say. His comment sounds to me like saying devolution has become a disaster because the people of Scotland have chosen to elect people who do not agree with the Tories and are not prepared to do what the UK government says.
Really his comments are little better than those of Johnson. They show a complete contempt for the electorate, it is almost as if he feels that the people of Scotland do not know what they have been voting for and their opinion should be ignored.
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.
I haven't been on here much lately, trying to avoid the Boris rampers vaccine victory lap. Next week will be the deal/no deal victory lap, so a low profile for a while.
Anyway, I thought Chic Murray was no longer with us...oh Ian!
Thinking more about Labour's position. My view, post Brexit, is that an independent Scotland is inevitable. It might be messy getting there but get there we will - for the simple reason that it is the only viable and stable destination. Nothing else works. Nothing else holds for more than a few years. So given this, perhaps what SLAB should do is get on the right side of history and flip to being a pro-indy party, with UK Labour keeping strictly to a "it's a matter for the Scots" line.
Stable for who? What proportion of the national debt would they start off with and where is their engine for growth?
The finances will be challenging but the outcome once worked through would be politically stable and I can't see any other outcome that would be. Or rather I can - a Sindy referendum that votes No by a bigger margin than last time - but the chances of that must be slim.
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.
The problem is that the status quo is dull. It is well known as are any flaws in it. It may work, but if it works well no one notices because people only notice things when they break or go badly wrong. No one ever said "I went to my car this morning and it started as I expected", but you will soon hear about it if the car failed to start.
Leave, OTOH, promised excitement, new adventures and cold cash upfront. "Whey-hey" as opposed to Ho hum...." and with £350m a week as well. And no Turkish invasion....
In other words there is no UK status quo anymore and it's now about calculating least bad options, for some at least.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
I agree with Johnson too. I disagreed with devolution at the time and even more so over differing covid and school exam responses. Chickens coming home to roost.
Of Johnson`s comments, Malcolm Rifkind* said today: "What he should have said is devolution has become a disaster because the Scottish national government, the SNP government in Scotland, are using the Scottish Parliament and the power they've got to try and destroy the United Kingdom"
(* by the way, my answer to the question "who is the best prime minister we never had?" - Rifkind would be number one on my list.)
I wonder if people like Rifkind ever actually stop to think about the implications of what they say. His comment sounds to me like saying devolution has become a disaster because the people of Scotland have chosen to elect people who do not agree with the Tories and are not prepared to do what the UK government says.
Really his comments are little better than those of Johnson. They show a complete contempt for the electorate, it is almost as if he feels that the people of Scotland do not know what they have been voting for and their opinion should be ignored.
Counterfactual: if the Conservatives had won the 2016 election, would they be using the Scottish Parliament and the power they had to try to preserve the United Kingdom? Because it sounds a lot like the platform they stood on.
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
Bozza clearly thought his line on devolution was a zinger, or he wouldn't have said it.
Maybe it was planned as a friendly leak, to make the PM look good....
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.
True , however I do not believe in referendums, we should in my opinion keep to parliamentary democracy. That is why we vote for MPs. If Scotland votes for enough Independence Mps then they should proceed.
Majority of MPs from, for example, 35% of the vote, and that's a mandate? That doesn't sound at all fair.
The SNP agree. They want electoral reform at Westminster.
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.
And yet there are plenty of those in the SNP.
There certainly used to be when the Tartan Tories were a thing (my father was one of them), but the relatively rapid increase in support/membership/elected members has come very much from the progressive side. In any case these sorts are very poorly represented at a public level, can you imagine Sturgeon coming out with a fraction of the nation aggrandising bluster that's BJ's stock in trade?
Or Mr Cameron's speeches, such as the one going on about his family origins and Scottish blood, and the one at Glasgow going on about the blood of the dead of the Somme and how it cried out for a No vote?
The classic I apologize if people took offence, rather than I apologize for my actions....
A Facebook post from Jeremy Corbyn this morning prima facie appears to show a significant backtracking from the former leader over his denial of antisemitism in the party as he attempts to undo his suspension from. In contrast to his defensive statement on the day of the EHRC report, in which he argued
“the scale of the [antisemitism] problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”
his new, less aggressive line is:
“To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated””
Those paying attention will note the carefully calibrated switch in Corbyn’s language from the antisemitism “problem” being overstated to “concerns” about antisemitism not being.
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.
True , however I do not believe in referendums, we should in my opinion keep to parliamentary democracy. That is why we vote for MPs. If Scotland votes for enough Independence Mps then they should proceed.
Almost weeing laughing at LBC. James O'Brien has some lunatic woman on saying that the Bible says that Barack Obama is a Satanist and that the pox vaccine is going to be full of Satan-controlled nanochips.
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.
An absolutely no self awareness hat he was reporting that figure as 2 a couple of weeks ago.
What a fucking dishonest twat.
It really is a shame that excellent interviewer journalists such as AN have all of a sudden become embroiled in misinformation. They used to be staunch defenders of truth and now my trust for them has gone, purely because they seem to have forgone fact checking when it comes to COVID.
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
Bozza clearly thought his line on devolution was a zinger, or he wouldn't have said it.
Maybe it was planned as a friendly leak, to make the PM look good....
I can't remember who tweeted it last night, but essentially they said that BJ tells the people in front of him what he thinks they want to hear, but he forgets that other people may be very unhappy (though in the case of the SNP, ecstatic) to hear it.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. Surely it's likely that if the demand for greater autonomy had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might have become decades were it not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
Here's my English regions based on things too ancient to remember:
SW: the current plus Hampshire, Berkshire and IoW SE: London, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Herts East: Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs, Beds, Northants, Lincs, Rutland Midlands: Current W Mids region, Notts, Derbs, Leic, Oxon, Bucks North: NW, Yorks, NE
I'm sure older names could be adopted to taste and there would be a few places that might sit better away from their counties (MK, High Peak).
That's my personal carve up, but actually what I'd do is provide a framework by which any area of the UK would have a broad permanent freedom of county/regional association and devolution, up to and including independence, with a range of rights available from civil parish up (there would be some limitations to this, e.g. for the GFA or to restrict religious enclaves). So, the door would be permanently open to the Scots, say, every 15 years or so.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. Surely it's likely that if the demand for greater autonomy had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might have become decades were it not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
I don't think that's true. It immediately took the SNP from being a minor party in Westminster to being the main party of opposition, and it's not a stretch to think that opposition governments eventually become governments.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. Surely it's likely that if the demand for greater autonomy had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might have become decades were it not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
I'm sure that is true in one sense. And yet, what is the route out of it to an independent Scotland? That remains at least as unclear as it is today in the face of an ingransigent UK government (albeit with the legal side still not fully explored in either case). Indeed life would be more difficult for a SNP without a governmental base, and without the development of further devolved institutions as an intermediate step.
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.
Here's my English regions based on things too ancient to remember:
SW: the current plus Hampshire, Berkshire and IoW SE: London, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Herts East: Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs, Beds, Northants, Lincs, Rutland Midlands: Current W Mids region, Notts, Derbs, Leic, Oxon, Bucks North: NW, Yorks, NE
I'm sure older names could be adopted to taste and there would be a few places that might sit better away from their counties (MK, High Peak).
That's my personal carve up, but actually what I'd do is provide a framework by which any area of the UK would have a broad permanent freedom of county/regional association and devolution, up to and including independence, with a range of rights available from civil parish up (there would be some limitations to this, e.g. for the GFA or to restrict religious enclaves). So, the door would be permanently open to the Scots, say, every 15 years or so.
Bucks and the West Midlands? United in, er... not much at all really.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. There was, remember, a strong desire for it. Surely it's likely that if the demand had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown larger and more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might become decades if it were not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
That was Blair`s argument. He may be right. But it was surely never foreseen (understandably) that the devolved powers would extend to diverging from a nationwide pandemic response including school exam inconsistencies (I would argue as a political tactic). Devolution can`t realistically be reversed but the powers should be looked at to ensure this cannot happen again.
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.
If Brexit goes very wrong, Ireland is at risk of being caught in the maelstrom: land bridge to the Continent, loss of fishing rights, trouble at the border with NI, loss of UK export market.
When the actions of one country can have such grave consequences on another then a rules-based means of mediating disputes between countries - which is what you could argue the EU is, indeed any Democratic institution is essentially about using law to mediate disputes - becomes indispensable.
Lest we forget Boris Johnson is Minister for the Union but he's done so much damage to the Union, he should restyle himself 'Minister for ensuring Scottish Independence.'
Hopefully Gove, who I suspect values the Union over Brexit, will do something to stop avoid No Deal Brexit.
Michael Gove, the saviour of the Union?
The Union is more fucked than a stepmom on Pornhub.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. There was, remember, a strong desire for it. Surely it's likely that if the demand had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown larger and more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might become decades if it were not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
That was Blair`s argument. He may be right. But it was surely never foreseen (understandably) that the devolved powers would extend to diverging from a nationwide pandemic response including school exam inconsistencies (I would argue as a political tactic). Devolution can`t realistically be reversed but the powers should be looked at to ensure this cannot happen again.
The exam systems were radically different even when Mrs T was ruling Scotland through her satraps andf Labour held most of the local authorities.
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).
Wasn't that where Madame Defarge Kirsty Wark and the Tricoteuses respected Scottish journalists were filmed in the Salmond trial 'documentary'
Scottish nationalism was perhaps inevitable with the fall of Empire.
Empire provided a raison d’etre for the ruling, trading, and fighting classes in both England and Scotland.
Winnie Ewing’s win in Hamilton (1967) and Britain’s retrenchment to “West of Suez” (1968) are of course not directly related, but can both be seen as part of the same entropic decline.
As Empire dissolved, a Labour-led “British” nationalism (delivering monolithic public initiatives like the bomb, the National Coal Boars, and British Leyland), presumably enjoyed the support of Scots, but did not itself survive the onslaught of the oil crisis, monetarism and Margaret Thatcher.
Since the 80s, then, the “Union” has not fully made sense to the Scots. Privatisation and poll tax did not feel like a national project worth believing in, let alone a partnership of equals.
If we (who?) want Scotland to stay, the Union has to make sense as a larger project worth investing in. The benefits need to be clear. And the sense of respect owed to Scotland and the Scots needs to be felt.
Needless to say, Brexit is the precise opposite of any of this...
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).
Wasn't that where Madame Defarge Kirsty Wark and the Tricoteuses respected Scottish journalists were filmed in the Salmond trial 'documentary'
Here's my English regions based on things too ancient to remember:
SW: the current plus Hampshire, Berkshire and IoW SE: London, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Herts East: Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs, Beds, Northants, Lincs, Rutland Midlands: Current W Mids region, Notts, Derbs, Leic, Oxon, Bucks North: NW, Yorks, NE
I'm sure older names could be adopted to taste and there would be a few places that might sit better away from their counties (MK, High Peak).
That's my personal carve up, but actually what I'd do is provide a framework by which any area of the UK would have a broad permanent freedom of county/regional association and devolution, up to and including independence, with a range of rights available from civil parish up (there would be some limitations to this, e.g. for the GFA or to restrict religious enclaves). So, the door would be permanently open to the Scots, say, every 15 years or so.
Bucks and the West Midlands? United in, er... not much at all really.
Bucks is irredeemably South East.
I put Bucks in a “mid Anglia” with Oxon, Beds, Northants, Hunts and Cambs.
But geographically, once you cross the Chilterns you are effectively in the Midlands.
Scottish nationalism was perhaps inevitable with the fall of Empire.
Empire provided a raison d’etre for the ruling, trading, and fighting classes in both England and Scotland.
Winnie Ewing’s win in Hamilton (1967) and Britain’s retrenchment to “West of Suez” (1968) are of course not directly related, but can both be seen as part of the same entropic decline.
As Empire dissolved, a Labour-led “British” nationalism (delivering monolithic public initiatives like the bomb, the National Coal Boars, and British Leyland), presumably enjoyed the support of Scots, but did not itself survive the onslaught of the oil crisis, monetarism and Margaret Thatcher.
Since the 80s, then, the “Union” has not fully made sense to the Scots. Privatisation and poll tax did not feel like a national project worth believing in, let alone a partnership of equals.
If we (who?) want Scotland to stay, the Union has to make sense as a larger project worth investing in. The benefits need to be clear. And the sense of respect owed to Scotland and the Scots needs to be felt.
Needless to say, Brexit is the precise opposite of any of this...
If it's "perhaps inevitable" why does it make sense to cling on to it? It would be better to accept it and facilitate it.
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.
Homo Sapiens allegedly beat the Neanderthals, even though they were individually stronger and more competitive than us, because we cooperated as a species and they didn't. (Harari)
Without cooperation we would have no cities, no laws, no democracy, no money. Competition is good for innovation, and indeed it is a key component of evolution. But cooperation is the key to human prosperity and thriving. Better together.
I think the libertarian model you carry in your head is too simplistic and needs a little work doing on it.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. Surely it's likely that if the demand for greater autonomy had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might have become decades were it not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
I've said it here before, but contra the great PB Tory devo myth, I don't think Blair gave a flying one for devolution or cementing the SLab hegemony or killing nationalism stone dead, he went along with it because his Scottish MPs were still a great power in the Labour land (Dewar, Cook, Brown among others), and they told him it was the smart AND the right thing to do.
The irony of Tories bleating about devolution while their own party's history on the subject is one of obstruction, broken promises and heads in sand is strong. The midwives of Scottish independence will be seen as Thatcher and Johnson, not Blair and Sturgeon.
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.
Homo Sapiens allegedly beat the Neanderthals, even though they were individually stronger and more competitive than us, because we cooperated as a species and they didn't. (Harari)
Without cooperation we would have no cities, no laws, no democracy, no money. Competition is good for innovation, and indeed it is a key component of evolution. But cooperation is the key to human prosperity and thriving. Better together.
I think the libertarian model you carry in your head is too simplistic and needs a little work doing on it.
I never said we should never co-operate, of course we should co-operate when it is in our own best interests to do so. Hence why I said 'nine out of ten' and not always.
Cooperation when it is mutually beneficial is a good thing but that entails all parties wanting to co-operate. It doesn't mean that we should always under all circumstances "come together" even when people want to do different things or go down different paths.
Homosapiens have a wonderful ability of both being individualists and communitarian when it suits them to do so. Suggesting we should always be collective is as moronic as those who suggest we should be vegan instead of omnivores.
Mr. Barnesian, it's a question of striking that balance, and reminds me of how quickly societies should change.
Adaptability is a good thing, but changes too rapid and a lack of consistency and coherence makes societies fragile, weak, and prone to collapse.
The cutting away of institutions is why lunatic political fringes like fascism and communism can create rapid change, and bugger things up, whether it's killing puppies to prove loyalty to the cause, or denouncing your own parents because the Party is what really counts.
Scottish nationalism was perhaps inevitable with the fall of Empire.
Empire provided a raison d’etre for the ruling, trading, and fighting classes in both England and Scotland.
Winnie Ewing’s win in Hamilton (1967) and Britain’s retrenchment to “West of Suez” (1968) are of course not directly related, but can both be seen as part of the same entropic decline.
As Empire dissolved, a Labour-led “British” nationalism (delivering monolithic public initiatives like the bomb, the National Coal Boars, and British Leyland), presumably enjoyed the support of Scots, but did not itself survive the onslaught of the oil crisis, monetarism and Margaret Thatcher.
Since the 80s, then, the “Union” has not fully made sense to the Scots. Privatisation and poll tax did not feel like a national project worth believing in, let alone a partnership of equals.
If we (who?) want Scotland to stay, the Union has to make sense as a larger project worth investing in. The benefits need to be clear. And the sense of respect owed to Scotland and the Scots needs to be felt.
Needless to say, Brexit is the precise opposite of any of this...
Home Rule/independence were there in the late C19 - remember there was extensive administrative devolution at this time, to try and fob it off, even if it just meant the satrap had his palacve on Calton Hill - and the SNP was co-founded (under a different name) by Keir Hardie in the 1900s. So Imperial decline isn't the prime mover, surely?.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. Surely it's likely that if the demand for greater autonomy had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might have become decades were it not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
I don't think that's true. It immediately took the SNP from being a minor party in Westminster to being the main party of opposition, and it's not a stretch to think that opposition governments eventually become governments.
But would they have stayed as a minor party at Westminster if devolution had been denied? Why would they not have consolidated anti Westminster sentiment behind them and, under FPTP, swept the board? They did it in 2015 off the back of the 2014 referendum after all. And if they had done that on the basis of a demand for a referendum rather than in the aftermath of losing it Scotland might have become independent by now. Or they certainly wouldn't be further from it, let's just postulate that. Who knows. Counterfactuals are inherently tricky. But my main point is that blaming devolution for the prospect of the breakup of the Union is imo essentially nonsense. The real culprit is Brexit and Brexiteers like Johnson know this and are thus engaged in displacement activity.
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Or a new MP is p*ssed off with the PM and wanted to get brownie points with journalists?
If Scotland does become independent a lot of the money that currently goes there will go to the North.
For example, throughout her term Thatcher's appearance evolved, hardening with power shoulders and the full "Gloriana Imperiatrix" bouffant hairdo by the end of her term - here they have her like that from the beginning. Anderson is growing on me - and the script is naughtily good - Andrew discussing a 17 year old being deflowered by older pervs in a movie script, the queen deciding to "do nothing" while Thatcher angrily demands of an aide how "doing nothing will improve the situation".
I have only watched the trailer posted on here the other day and suffice to say, the words/thoughts that HMQ used in that trailer she would never have said or say to a PM.
Likewise "A Question of Attribution".
Fantastic entertainment, both, but fiction nevertheless and to be all the more enjoyed for that.
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.
It’s odd.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Or a new MP is p*ssed off with the PM and wanted to get brownie points with journalists?
If Scotland does become independent a lot of the money that currently goes there will go to the North.
Comments
And one might inquire as to whether this overrepresentation was (a) real, and (b) not simply an indication of maladministration within the UK forcing emigration or joining the army etc.
They would have required barriers to cross-border trade I suppose, but if the English are OK with that with respect to their largest trading partner then why shouldn't the Scots be OK too?
No efforts have been made to accommodate Scottish views at any point. It is utterly shameful.
Labour have won a majority in England before and either they or AN Other party opposing the Tories would again in the future.
Labour currently have 202/650 UK seats (31%).
If Scotland went independent and NI unified with the Republic leaving England and Wales together like the Cricket Team then Labour would as it stands have 201/573 (37%)
If the nation became England and Wales then Labour would reposition itself seeking to win a majority of England and Wales MPs. They have done so before and would do so again eventually.
The issues have descended to us in 2020 as social justice, land reform, and foreign policy, and those things absolutely DO matter. But we can think about those issues without obsessing over the fucking Darien Scheme, or tales of redcoat armies marching on Stirling.
This was from a private call with Tory MPs in the North
Someone wanted to damage the PM more than they cared about the damage to the party
Telling his audience what they want to hear without regard for the consequences.
It is habitual, learned behaviour and has served him well, both professionally and privately.
Why change?
Quite why they believe imperialism is still a big thing I dont know. Not everything a powerful country does is imperialism.
But Corbyns said enough to get his suspension lifted I expect, so no mass exodus to new groups I'd think.
I'd just raise the thought that if Mr Johnson keeps following the doctrine that devolutiuon is bad and ends up trying to close it down even more than he already is with the IMB, then that opens a chasm between his mob and Labour. Vide Mr Sarwar'[s words quoted here a little earlier. As things are, Labour will be a lot more nervous about getting into bed wiuth Mr Johnson than they were with Mr Cameron (so to speak).
I bow to none in opposing the goals of Sindy backers, but who cares if it's a first world problem?
We are a first world country so of course we have first world problems.
The only reason that phrase would make sense is if the wielder was claiming we aren't first world so need to deal with other issues instead. Since we are first world then its confirming it is a problem for us. What purpose does that serve?
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1328666786414415873?s=20
For example, throughout her term Thatcher's appearance evolved, hardening with power shoulders and the full "Gloriana Imperiatrix" bouffant hairdo by the end of her term - here they have her like that from the beginning. Anderson is growing on me - and the script is naughtily good - Andrew discussing a 17 year old being deflowered by older pervs in a movie script, the queen deciding to "do nothing" while Thatcher angrily demands of an aide how "doing nothing will improve the situation".
https://twitter.com/modernleifeng/status/1328560355572846594?s=19
Leave, OTOH, promised excitement, new adventures and cold cash upfront. "Whey-hey" as opposed to Ho hum...." and with £350m a week as well. And no Turkish invasion....
BBC News - More than 100,000 divorces in England and Wales last year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-54972762
Of Johnson`s comments, Malcolm Rifkind* said today: "What he should have said is devolution has become a disaster because the Scottish national government, the SNP government in Scotland, are using the Scottish Parliament and the power they've got to try and destroy the United Kingdom"
(* by the way, my answer to the question "who is the best prime minister we never had?" - Rifkind would be number one on my list.)
That is why we vote for MPs.
If Scotland votes for enough Independence Mps then they should proceed.
What a fucking dishonest twat.
If Scotland does become independent a lot of the money that currently goes there will go to the North.
I wonder if people like Rifkind ever actually stop to think about the implications of what they say. His comment sounds to me like saying devolution has become a disaster because the people of Scotland have chosen to elect people who do not agree with the Tories and are not prepared to do what the UK government says.
Really his comments are little better than those of Johnson. They show a complete contempt for the electorate, it is almost as if he feels that the people of Scotland do not know what they have been voting for and their opinion should be ignored.
I haven't been on here much lately, trying to avoid the Boris rampers vaccine victory lap. Next week will be the deal/no deal victory lap, so a low profile for a while.
Anyway, I thought Chic Murray was no longer with us...oh Ian!
The 7 day moving average of deaths was not 2 to the week ending October 25th.
He ahs consistently used lagged data to lie about the situation. He is either an absolute fucking idiot or a deliberate liar.
if the Conservatives had won the 2016 election, would they be using the Scottish Parliament and the power they had to try to preserve the United Kingdom? Because it sounds a lot like the platform they stood on.
Bozza clearly thought his line on devolution was a zinger, or he wouldn't have said it.
Maybe it was planned as a friendly leak, to make the PM look good....
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1328676113191723014
https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/1328341544911466497?s=20
A Facebook post from Jeremy Corbyn this morning prima facie appears to show a significant backtracking from the former leader over his denial of antisemitism in the party as he attempts to undo his suspension from. In contrast to his defensive statement on the day of the EHRC report, in which he argued
“the scale of the [antisemitism] problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”
his new, less aggressive line is:
“To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated””
Those paying attention will note the carefully calibrated switch in Corbyn’s language from the antisemitism “problem” being overstated to “concerns” about antisemitism not being.
https://order-order.com/2020/11/17/no-corbyn-hasnt-u-turned-over-antisemitism-exaggeration-claims/
SW: the current plus Hampshire, Berkshire and IoW
SE: London, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Herts
East: Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs, Beds, Northants, Lincs, Rutland
Midlands: Current W Mids region, Notts, Derbs, Leic, Oxon, Bucks
North: NW, Yorks, NE
I'm sure older names could be adopted to taste and there would be a few places that might sit better away from their counties (MK, High Peak).
That's my personal carve up, but actually what I'd do is provide a framework by which any area of the UK would have a broad permanent freedom of county/regional association and devolution, up to and including independence, with a range of rights available from civil parish up (there would be some limitations to this, e.g. for the GFA or to restrict religious enclaves). So, the door would be permanently open to the Scots, say, every 15 years or so.
It's like using 'denier' for anything other than the Holocaust (those who believe it to be a myth).
I don't support Scottish independence but it's not an illegitimate or trivial political issue.
Bucks is irredeemably South East.
When the actions of one country can have such grave consequences on another then a rules-based means of mediating disputes between countries - which is what you could argue the EU is, indeed any Democratic institution is essentially about using law to mediate disputes - becomes indispensable.
Hopefully Gove, who I suspect values the Union over Brexit, will do something to stop avoid No Deal Brexit.
Michael Gove, the saviour of the Union?
The Union is more fucked than a stepmom on Pornhub.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/17/boris-johnson-verbal-incontinence-scottish-devolution-huge-boost-for-nicola-sturgeon
Madame DefargeKirsty Wark and theTricoteusesrespected Scottish journalists were filmed in the Salmond trial 'documentary'Empire provided a raison d’etre for the ruling, trading, and fighting classes in both England and Scotland.
Winnie Ewing’s win in Hamilton (1967) and Britain’s retrenchment to “West of Suez” (1968) are of course not directly related, but can both be seen as part of the same entropic decline.
As Empire dissolved, a Labour-led “British” nationalism (delivering monolithic public initiatives like the bomb, the National Coal Boars, and British Leyland), presumably enjoyed the support of Scots, but did not itself survive the onslaught of the oil crisis, monetarism and Margaret Thatcher.
Since the 80s, then, the “Union” has not fully made sense to the Scots. Privatisation and poll tax did not feel like a national project worth believing in, let alone a partnership of equals.
If we (who?) want Scotland to stay, the Union has to make sense as a larger project worth investing in. The benefits need to be clear. And the sense of respect owed to Scotland and the Scots needs to be felt.
Needless to say, Brexit is the precise opposite of any of this...
But geographically, once you cross the Chilterns you are effectively in the Midlands.
Without cooperation we would have no cities, no laws, no democracy, no money. Competition is good for innovation, and indeed it is a key component of evolution. But cooperation is the key to human prosperity and thriving. Better together.
I think the libertarian model you carry in your head is too simplistic and needs a little work doing on it.
The irony of Tories bleating about devolution while their own party's history on the subject is one of obstruction, broken promises and heads in sand is strong. The midwives of Scottish independence will be seen as Thatcher and Johnson, not Blair and Sturgeon.
Cooperation when it is mutually beneficial is a good thing but that entails all parties wanting to co-operate. It doesn't mean that we should always under all circumstances "come together" even when people want to do different things or go down different paths.
Homosapiens have a wonderful ability of both being individualists and communitarian when it suits them to do so. Suggesting we should always be collective is as moronic as those who suggest we should be vegan instead of omnivores.
The key, as in most things in life, is balance.
Adaptability is a good thing, but changes too rapid and a lack of consistency and coherence makes societies fragile, weak, and prone to collapse.
The cutting away of institutions is why lunatic political fringes like fascism and communism can create rapid change, and bugger things up, whether it's killing puppies to prove loyalty to the cause, or denouncing your own parents because the Party is what really counts.
Likewise "A Question of Attribution".
Fantastic entertainment, both, but fiction nevertheless and to be all the more enjoyed for that.