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?.
Sure, sure.
Nationalism was a 19th century thing too. I just meant “the rise of nationalist sentiment as a significant force”.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
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.
What money? We have no money.
Barnett.
So you plan to apply the Barnett formula to Northern England, once Scotland is independent? Interesting.
I don't think that Scottish independence is inevitable, the issue is in the balance. True the useless buffoon BJ is not helping the Union (or anything else except a so far weak Labour recovery). Looking at the state of politics and public administration in England and the rest of the UK and given the social and technical changes that are in progress let's have a Royal Commission into UK wide constitutional reform. I'm personally coming around to a federal model and I think that would stop full separation in its tracks. Foreign policy, immigration, defence and central bank + borrowing limits UK responsibilities. Everything else devolved including taxation, social security, pensions. There would be common market rules as well!
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.
But I don't know about that. What if the SNP were to have won most of the Scottish seats at a Westminster election with a demand for greater autonomy and ultimately independence in their manifesto?
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.
I defer to no one in delight over the demise of the Sage of Barnard Castle, but he was at least right on recognizing science spending, R&D and regional investment problems.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
My recollection of 1997 was, apart from the Conservatives, everyone else had (eventually) lined up behind the Constitutional Convention and wanted devolution.
The referendum vote that autumn was pretty decisive - every region voted Yes.
There seemed a sense that after eighteen years of being "ruled" from London with successive Secretaries of State acting more like Governors, it was time to re-assert some autonomy in domestic affairs. The Poll Tax had been a political disaster for Scottish Conservatives and while Major had done well to rally the cause in 1992, the 1997 election really was an extinction event for Scottish Conservatives.
Indeed, the proposed Parliament gave the Tories a way back but few, I suspect, envisaged the events of the next twenty years. Indeed, I suspect some believed the granting of devolution would knock back the SNP but it was a classic case of "give an inch take a foot and before you know it you haven't got a leg to stand on".
Hindsight is a marvellous thing and it's easy to forget the London Mayoral referendum also came out of the 1997 victory - again the Conservatives were opposed but while it could be argued apathy was the real winner, the fact was there was no strength behind the NO campaign.
I don't hear anyone on the Conservative side advocating abolition of the London Mayoralty but it's not a powerful post in and of itself though it conveys a high political profile on the holder as Boris Johnson will be well aware.
Without being funny, everybody in America is an immigrant and even those who advocate to see much tougher immigration rules, don't want to rule out PhD level immigration.
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
Like the PM gives a damn about the party. Ditto anyone who has promoted Brexit.
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.
He might be too busy seeking a new seat if the boundary proposals are carried out - his 10,000 vote heartland is set to be carved out and put in Edinburgh East, leaving only the affluent owner/occupier/Tory leafy suburbs.
I defer to no one in delight over the demise of the Sage of Barnard Castle, but he was at least right on recognizing science spending, R&D and regional investment problems.
Especially with Boris at the helm, I can see 2021 being totally wrapped up in vaccines deployment and whatever Brexit arrangement me have and then being bogged down in how to deal with enormous spending that has gone on.
Any sort of "revolution" in R&D will go by the wayside as it just won't ever be a priority to enough people, especially those who feel their roles will be threatened, and there will the constant campaigns for spending to be diverted to hungry kids etc.
The government needed somebody who really understand this on it from day one and told we are backing this come what may.
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.
What money? We have no money.
Barnett.
So you plan to apply the Barnett formula to Northern England, once Scotland is independent? Interesting.
My point was simply "there is no money".
Sort of.
Barnett money goes to Scotland currently. If it wasn't for Barnett then Northern seats would get relatively more money.
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.
Without being funny, everybody in America is an immigrant and even those who advocate to see much tougher immigration rules, don't want to rule out PhD level immigration.
You're an immigrant to a place if you were born in it?
The Vicar of Dibley is to return for three lockdown-inspired specials this Christmas.
Dawn French returns to the titular role, as vicar Geraldine Grainger, for the 10-minute episodes.
They will air after repeats of the classic sitcom and are to show how Geraldine has been delivering monthly sermons on Zoom, and talking to local primary school children online.
The show's creator Richard Curtis said: "Like every village in the country, there's been a lot happening in Dibley this year - and Dawn has got a lot to say about it."
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
Perhaps (one/some/all of) the MPs were sick and tired of being sent out to defend positions that moments later are very publicly reversed.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
Without being funny, everybody in America is an immigrant and even those who advocate to see much tougher immigration rules, don't want to rule out PhD level immigration.
You're an immigrant to a place if you were born in it?
You know what I mean, and it is also the culture of the US to talk about your immigrant roots. See Biden making a big deal about how Irish he is.
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.
There is some "need to be different", I can see that, but I just think the boat has sailed. Scotland has devolved, yet they keep electing as their government a party whose core belief and policy is to go further and leave the UK. That is not a tenable situation, It has to evolve and there is only one place I can see it evolving to - independence. 45% voted for it in 2014 against the forces of Project Fear / Pragmatism (delete to taste). The 55% was heavily weighted to older people and no doubt included many who quite fancied a bit of Sindy but were in the end swayed by prudence and the relative safety of the status quo. And since then there has been Brexit and a landslide Tory government under Boris Johnson, all of which are as appealing up there as a nasty bout of corona. So, you know, I think it's a done deal, but things will fester until it's legally executed, and therefore it is best closed out asap.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
I defer to no one in delight over the demise of the Sage of Barnard Castle, but he was at least right on recognizing science spending, R&D and regional investment problems.
Interesting that the Telegraph's closing comment was "...if we're not going to do anything differently, what was the point of Brexit at all?"
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...
Scotland cannot join Schengen (as the Republic of Ireland has not) if it wants free movement throughout the British isles, which I suspect would be the higher priority.
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.
A strong sense of "we know it's mainly about Brexit and about us, but let's cast around for villains we are comfortable with."
I'm getting a whiff of the old "the financial crash was caused by Bill Clinton making poor people buy houses" vibe about it.
Captain Hindsight complaint incoming.....lets not forget the Labour dodgy dossier and demands the government pay people who didn't have any stock nor any record working with Chinese suppliers, like football agents.
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?
I'm sure Scotland would write off the £19 billion debt owed to it as a good faith gesture:
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with 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 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.
Devolution was largely a New Labour project and New Labour was largely Scottish.
As much as Brexit, I think Covid is an event of wonder that allows for all sorts of magical things to happen.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
It’s not an assembly anymore. It’s a full Parliament.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
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.
The key, as in most things in life, is balance.
We are agreed, you, Morris_Dancer and myself that it is a matter of balance.
Your original comment "We don't need to "come together", we need people to look after themselves first and foremost" sounded a little unbalanced, which is why I commented.
It is interesting that Asian countries have struck a different balance between cooperation and competition than the West, and the consequence, ironically, is that the East will out compete the West, like Homo Sapiens out competed the Neanderthals.
The Vicar of Dibley is to return for three lockdown-inspired specials this Christmas.
Dawn French returns to the titular role, as vicar Geraldine Grainger, for the 10-minute episodes.
They will air after repeats of the classic sitcom and are to show how Geraldine has been delivering monthly sermons on Zoom, and talking to local primary school children online.
The show's creator Richard Curtis said: "Like every village in the country, there's been a lot happening in Dibley this year - and Dawn has got a lot to say about it."
-------
Sounds we are going to get a political lecture.
After a year of deep anxiety, bereavement and stress, this could be the final straw.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
China turns Ladakh battleground with India into a ‘microwave oven’
China’s military used microwave weapons to force Indian troops to retreat during a months-long border standoff in the Himalayas, according to an account that has emerged in Beijing.
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.
He might be too busy seeking a new seat if the boundary proposals are carried out - his 10,000 vote heartland is set to be carved out and put in Edinburgh East, leaving only the affluent owner/occupier/Tory leafy suburbs.
Oh dear. Which means the Tories might actually win. And this is a chap who is reported as telling the Guardian in 2017 that he thought Scottish Labour voters should vote tactically Tory to keep the SNP out, except obvs in his seat where the reverse applied.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
It will be difficult in the short to medium term, you are right. In 2014 I thought it wasn't worth it. But 2016, and the sight of Scotland being forced to leave the EU when 62% voted to stay, changed my mind. The Union is toxic for Scotland. The economic costs in the short term will be larger than for Brexit, but the potential benefits are also far higher, because the UK exerts far more control over Scotland's political choices than the EU ever has over the UK. And with the rUK outside of the EU there are many potential niches for Scotland, inside the EU, to occupy.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
It sounds like the rUK would have an interest in Scottish membership of the EU in order to avoid the kind of risks you outline.
The Vicar of Dibley is to return for three lockdown-inspired specials this Christmas.
Dawn French returns to the titular role, as vicar Geraldine Grainger, for the 10-minute episodes.
They will air after repeats of the classic sitcom and are to show how Geraldine has been delivering monthly sermons on Zoom, and talking to local primary school children online.
The show's creator Richard Curtis said: "Like every village in the country, there's been a lot happening in Dibley this year - and Dawn has got a lot to say about it."
It's curious that more money at Betfair is backing Biden than laying Trump. For sure, Trump can't win. There is no reasonably conceivable path to a Trump victory even in Betfair's terms. But Biden can certainly fail to win. The man is 77, everybody wants to meet him, there's a virus going around, the members of the electoral college won't cast their votes until 14 December, and this is the year of the black swans. Harris has more chance than Trump, in my opinion. Just saying. She's worth a punt of a few pounds at 1000. I wonder how many of those who are gambling on Biden at 1.06 are prepared for the possibility of losing their presumably quite large stakes?
Trump spent four years bitching at the DoJ that it should arrest Hillary - and for what? What did he achieve?
If Trump has broken laws then let the FBI and DoJ impartially investigate and prove it. It doesn't need the President trying to put his thumb on the scales.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
Wonder how the negotiations over Trident and Faslane would go? Would cost billions to relocate and take a fair bit of time. And yet SNP are, so far as I am aware, committed to banishing nuclear weapons from Scotland's territory and a lot of its support is premised on carrying that policy out.
First, push a third option: devolution of 50% of taxes (ie pretty much everything apart from income tax and national insurance), ability to borrow etc. Not quite full-fiscal autonomy, but close.
Second: set up conditions towards a grown up electoral choice. Not simple majoritarianism. Learn the lessons of Brexit. Multi-choice, or multi-round, with a threshold for change.
Third: find pro-Union civil groups.
Fourth: Relocate, or create new, Union-wide institutions eg U.K. Govt departments; Scottish outpost and seat on Bank of *Britain*; Artic Co-operation Council; etc.
Fifth: Ensure the complexities (per Casino’s email) are confidently vocalised. Brexit actually gives truth to “Project Fear”, makes this story more valid.
Sixth: Ensure proper focus on national press on SNP’s underperformance in key areas.
Don’t really see the “Minister for the Union” doing or thinking about any of this stuff.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
That 60% you quote is I presume exports? It includes all financial and other services, so can you be specific about the restrictions rUK will be putting on the EU single market which Scotland will undoubtedly seek to be part of?
Incidentally, Scotland currently exports more manufactured goods to the EU than it does to the rest of the UK - it's only by adding bulk products (especially agricultural) that the balance reverses and then Financial Services makes up the rest of the final total.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
It will be difficult in the short to medium term, you are right. In 2014 I thought it wasn't worth it. But 2016, and the sight of Scotland being forced to leave the EU when 62% voted to stay, changed my mind. The Union is toxic for Scotland. The economic costs in the short term will be larger than for Brexit, but the potential benefits are also far higher, because the UK exerts far more control over Scotland's political choices than the EU ever has over the UK. And with the rUK outside of the EU there are many potential niches for Scotland, inside the EU, to occupy.
Tell me more about these niches, and their value. Genuinely curious.
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?
I'm sure Scotland would write off the £19 billion debt owed to it as a good faith gesture:
Now that the govt is in the business of tearing up its international agreements and responsibilities, what makes Edinburgh think they will ever see that £19bn?
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
You've misread. I'm saying the Welsh had a secure cultural identity and not all of them were all that fussed about securing a political one on top.
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.
doesn't the tube network reach bucks?
That's a good question, just how far into the suburbs does the Philadelphia metro reach. Was the Biden bounce coterminus with subway network reach ?
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
You've misread. I'm saying the Welsh had a secure cultural identity and not all of them were all that fussed about securing a political one on top.
First, push a third option: devolution of 50% of taxes (ie pretty much everything apart from income tax and national insurance), ability to borrow etc. Not quite full-fiscal autonomy, but close.
Second: set up conditions towards a grown up electoral choice. Not simple majoritarianism. Learn the lessons of Brexit. Multi-choice, or multi-round, with a threshold for change.
Third: find pro-Union civil groups.
Fourth: Relocate, or create new, Union-wide institutions eg U.K. Govt departments; Scottish outpost and seat on Bank of *Britain*; Artic Co-operation Council; etc.
Fifth: Ensure the complexities (per Casino’s email) are confidently vocalised. Brexit actually gives truth to “Project Fear”, makes this story more valid.
Sixth: Ensure proper focus on national press on SNP’s underperformance in key areas.
Don’t really see the “Minister for the Union” doing or thinking about any of this stuff.
Trump spent four years bitching at the DoJ that it should arrest Hillary - and for what? What did he achieve?
If Trump has broken laws then let the FBI and DoJ impartially investigate and prove it. It doesn't need the President trying to put his thumb on the scales.
This is signalling he doesn't want the DoJ to start investigations. It'll take a brave prosecutor to go against the will of the President.
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.
Devolution was largely a New Labour project and New Labour was largely Scottish.
As much as Brexit, I think Covid is an event of wonder that allows for all sorts of magical things to happen.
Covid is definitely giving Sturgeon an excellent platform to project a "National Leader" persona. And I think she further benefits from the Johnson comparison. No two individuals could have less in common. They clash in every way.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
Wonder how the negotiations over Trident and Faslane would go? Would cost billions to relocate and take a fair bit of time. And yet SNP are, so far as I am aware, committed to banishing nuclear weapons from Scotland's territory and a lot of its support is premised on carrying that policy out.
I'd imagine it'd need 5-10 years to do that.
At the end of the day the submarines need new berths and ports to be built first plus all the servicing and ancillary facilities and you can't go much faster than that.
Trump spent four years bitching at the DoJ that it should arrest Hillary - and for what? What did he achieve?
If Trump has broken laws then let the FBI and DoJ impartially investigate and prove it. It doesn't need the President trying to put his thumb on the scales.
This is signalling he doesn't want the DoJ to start investigations. It'll take a brave prosecutor to go against the will of the President.
Unless New York state is under the DOJ I think Trump will be busy for a good while yet.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
You've misread. I'm saying the Welsh had a secure cultural identity and not all of them were all that fussed about securing a political one on top.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
It sounds like the rUK would have an interest in Scottish membership of the EU in order to avoid the kind of risks you outline.
Membership of NATO, certainly, but I'm not sure how you each membership of the EU too.
Five eyes isn't relevant to that and nor would a bilateral defence treaty be.
Trump spent four years bitching at the DoJ that it should arrest Hillary - and for what? What did he achieve?
If Trump has broken laws then let the FBI and DoJ impartially investigate and prove it. It doesn't need the President trying to put his thumb on the scales.
Yes. Comey's FBI had quite a bit on Trump and Russia (enough for General Flynn to be forced out). Let the feds get him.
First, push a third option: devolution of 50% of taxes (ie pretty much everything apart from income tax and national insurance), ability to borrow etc. Not quite full-fiscal autonomy, but close.
Second: set up conditions towards a grown up electoral choice. Not simple majoritarianism. Learn the lessons of Brexit. Multi-choice, or multi-round, with a threshold for change.
Third: find pro-Union civil groups.
Fourth: Relocate, or create new, Union-wide institutions eg U.K. Govt departments; Scottish outpost and seat on Bank of *Britain*; Artic Co-operation Council; etc.
Fifth: Ensure the complexities (per Casino’s email) are confidently vocalised. Brexit actually gives truth to “Project Fear”, makes this story more valid.
Sixth: Ensure proper focus on national press on SNP’s underperformance in key areas.
Don’t really see the “Minister for the Union” doing or thinking about any of this stuff.
1, 2, most of 4, and definitely 5 are about appealing to voters' intellects. Please don't try it. As for 6, I'm not sure what you mean by the national press, but for many in Scotland, including many Unionists, the British press is the "English" press. Of course it isn't any such thing, but that's the common view north of the border. 6 is good though, and stronger words might be used than "underperformance". The SNP has been godawful running the Scottish government, and that's not the fault of "Westminster" to use SNP parlance. It's their own fault.
I would expand 3. What is needed is to make the Union cuddly - actually to bolster cultural institutions that strengthen and modernise it. No government has understood this for as long as I can remember, although I recall that David Cameron a matter of days before the indyref did get a smidgeon of a clue in his head when he had the saltire raised over Downing Street. "Bank of Britain" is also long overdue, and a clear case of something that should be done right away, no ifs, no buts. But there are many other cultural things that can be done. There needs to be a cultural campaign to build friendship and understanding among the home nations.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
Wonder how the negotiations over Trident and Faslane would go? Would cost billions to relocate and take a fair bit of time. And yet SNP are, so far as I am aware, committed to banishing nuclear weapons from Scotland's territory and a lot of its support is premised on carrying that policy out.
I'd imagine it'd need 5-10 years to do that.
At the end of the day the submarines need new berths and ports to be built first plus all the servicing and ancillary facilities and you can't go much faster than that.
No, the boats don't. Plenty of rtoom for nuke boats in Pompey and Guz. It's the nukes and missiles that need bunkers and handling. But that's just concrete - a doddle for the London government to organise.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
It will be difficult in the short to medium term, you are right. In 2014 I thought it wasn't worth it. But 2016, and the sight of Scotland being forced to leave the EU when 62% voted to stay, changed my mind. The Union is toxic for Scotland. The economic costs in the short term will be larger than for Brexit, but the potential benefits are also far higher, because the UK exerts far more control over Scotland's political choices than the EU ever has over the UK. And with the rUK outside of the EU there are many potential niches for Scotland, inside the EU, to occupy.
I think anger over Brexit explains a lot of it, yes. But I also think that allows people's confirmation bias to run riot off the back of it.
Scotland has a lot of autonomy in the UK and it really is the best of both worlds. Inside the EU it would have a seat at the table but it wouldn't be very influential - under QMV it would usually have to go along with decisions rather than make them.
I think EEA membership would largely address most of the practical frustrations of EU exit for Scotland, although it might not ameliorate the political damage.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
You've misread. I'm saying the Welsh had a secure cultural identity and not all of them were all that fussed about securing a political one on top.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
It will be difficult in the short to medium term, you are right. In 2014 I thought it wasn't worth it. But 2016, and the sight of Scotland being forced to leave the EU when 62% voted to stay, changed my mind. The Union is toxic for Scotland. The economic costs in the short term will be larger than for Brexit, but the potential benefits are also far higher, because the UK exerts far more control over Scotland's political choices than the EU ever has over the UK. And with the rUK outside of the EU there are many potential niches for Scotland, inside the EU, to occupy.
I think anger over Brexit explains a lot of it, yes. But I also think that allows people's confirmation bias to run riot off the back of it.
Scotland has a lot of autonomy in the UK and it really is the best of both worlds. Inside the EU it would have a seat at the table but it wouldn't be very influential - under QMV it would usually have to go along with decisions rather than make them.
I think EEA membership would largely address most of the practical frustrations of EU exit for Scotland, although it might not ameliorate the political damage.
Do you not see the irony that your logic here is almost identical to Cameron's in 2016?
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
Wonder how the negotiations over Trident and Faslane would go? Would cost billions to relocate and take a fair bit of time. And yet SNP are, so far as I am aware, committed to banishing nuclear weapons from Scotland's territory and a lot of its support is premised on carrying that policy out.
I'd imagine it'd need 5-10 years to do that.
At the end of the day the submarines need new berths and ports to be built first plus all the servicing and ancillary facilities and you can't go much faster than that.
No, the boats don't. Plenty of rtoom for nuke boats in Pompey and Guz. It's the nukes and missiles that need bunkers and handling. But that's just concrete - a doddle for the London government to organise.
So, you think it could all be done in weeks then? Or do you just not want to think about how the pragmatics of how difficult it would be and would prefer to just make jokes about Westminster instead?
I don't get it. Any politician and political office staff that senior with eyes and a brain would know the old adage about not digging. And yet here we are digging the pit deeper and deeper and deeper.
I know that first thing this morning I pointed out that Shagger is a crap politician. I know that almost impossibly stupid things happen like the Four Seasons Total Landscaping fiasco. But that they are still banging this particular drum is starting to feel like it is deliberate.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
You've misread. I'm saying the Welsh had a secure cultural identity and not all of them were all that fussed about securing a political one on top.
I'm not sure why you keep using concepts like "identity" in the singular. Where I grew up you would see replica England football shirts. 20 miles away it's Welsh rugby shirts. Nobody I know speaks Welsh. In some places it's the first language. There are places where Plaid Cymru are nothing, and places were they maintain a stable plurality. There are steelworks and sleepy villages. There are people who spend their Sunday mornings in worship, and other who spend them puking into the gutter in St Mary's Street (and I feel sorry for both)
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has tested negative for coronavirus but will remain in self-isolation, Downing Street has said.
He took a rapid turnaround lateral flow test on Monday as part of a pilot scheme for No 10 staff.
The same is true for any test. Get exposed to pox. Self-isolate for 14 days. Get a test. Result is no pox. Stay in isolation anyway because they don't trust the accuracy of their tests...
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
You've misread. I'm saying the Welsh had a secure cultural identity and not all of them were all that fussed about securing a political one on top.
I'm not sure why you keep using concepts like "identity" in the singular. Where I grew up you would see replica England football shirts. 20 miles away it's Welsh rugby shirts. Nobody I know speaks Welsh. In some places it's the first language. There are places where Plaid Cymru are nothing, and places were they maintain a stable plurality. There are steelworks and sleepy villages. There are people who spend their Sunday mornings in worship, and other who spend them puking into the gutter in St Mary's Street (and I feel sorry for both)
There is no Welsh cultural identity.
I thought all the Welsh liked leeks and daffodils?
I defer to no one in delight over the demise of the Sage of Barnard Castle, but he was at least right on recognizing science spending, R&D and regional investment problems.
Interesting that the Telegraph's closing comment was "...if we're not going to do anything differently, what was the point of Brexit at all?"
I had a little tumble around the other day with Philip on this one. My view is that if we don't use Brexit to do some serious things which EU membership precluded then Brexit was pointless apart from it gave us the twin gifts of PM Boris Johnson and this landslide Tory government. Philip's reply to this was that it doesn't matter whether we do or don't do these things. What matters is that we could if we wanted to.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
Wonder how the negotiations over Trident and Faslane would go? Would cost billions to relocate and take a fair bit of time. And yet SNP are, so far as I am aware, committed to banishing nuclear weapons from Scotland's territory and a lot of its support is premised on carrying that policy out.
I'd imagine it'd need 5-10 years to do that.
At the end of the day the submarines need new berths and ports to be built first plus all the servicing and ancillary facilities and you can't go much faster than that.
No, the boats don't. Plenty of rtoom for nuke boats in Pompey and Guz. It's the nukes and missiles that need bunkers and handling. But that's just concrete - a doddle for the London government to organise.
So, you think it could all be done in weeks then? Or do you just not want to think about how the pragmatics of how difficult it would be and would prefer to just make jokes about Westminster instead?
I'm no expert but I understand it would be a hugely expensive operation. Thousands of people work at Faslane. Moreover, US unlikely to be impressed by a NATO candidate seeking to disable rUK's nuclear deterrence. NATO is a nuclear alliance at the end of the day. I think the nukes and subs will stay whatever SNP tell their supporters.
It's curious that more money at Betfair is backing Biden than laying Trump. For sure, Trump can't win. There is no reasonably conceivable path to a Trump victory even in Betfair's terms. But Biden can certainly fail to win. The man is 77, everybody wants to meet him, there's a virus going around, the members of the electoral college won't cast their votes until 14 December, and this is the year of the black swans. Harris has more chance than Trump, in my opinion. Just saying. She's worth a punt of a few pounds at 1000. I wonder how many of those who are gambling on Biden at 1.06 are prepared for the possibility of losing their presumably quite large stakes?
Welcome Puck, and long may you post here, but I think you'll find this has already been thoroughly aired. Have a look at Betfair's rules and you'll see that even in the unfortunate demise of JB, he would still be the declared winner.
On a related subject you might like to consider whether bets now being placed on the contest are actually valid. Bookmakers operate under the general principle that bets placed after an event has finished and a winner declared are automatically void. It's a good rule and you can see why it is in operation.
I should think there is a good case for saying all Presidential markets should be closed and settled and anyone now betting is doing so on an event that has finished.
In a way, Betfair have already conceded this by settling a number of the markets, including most of the individual States. Unless they can indicate what they are waiting for and how their rules indicate that in certain areas the result is not yet known, they are in danger of running into some serious litigation.
As my old HM used to say to me: 'If you can't be right, at least be consistent.' Betfair are in danger of appearing wrong AND inconsistent.
FWIW I think the UK could have got away without Welsh devolution (support there has always been lukewarm, and they had a strong culture anyway) but not Scottish devolution. It was politically unsustainable to resist it.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
Agree with your main points.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
I think it depends on your point of view.
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
Are you really saying that the "legal entity of England & Wales" = a "secure cultural identity".
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
You've misread. I'm saying the Welsh had a secure cultural identity and not all of them were all that fussed about securing a political one on top.
Enough of them were though.
Yes, but that wasn't the point I was making.
By your logic we could have "got away" with not Brexiting as well.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
Wonder how the negotiations over Trident and Faslane would go? Would cost billions to relocate and take a fair bit of time. And yet SNP are, so far as I am aware, committed to banishing nuclear weapons from Scotland's territory and a lot of its support is premised on carrying that policy out.
I'd imagine it'd need 5-10 years to do that.
At the end of the day the submarines need new berths and ports to be built first plus all the servicing and ancillary facilities and you can't go much faster than that.
No, the boats don't. Plenty of rtoom for nuke boats in Pompey and Guz. It's the nukes and missiles that need bunkers and handling. But that's just concrete - a doddle for the London government to organise.
So, you think it could all be done in weeks then? Or do you just not want to think about how the pragmatics of how difficult it would be and would prefer to just make jokes about Westminster instead?
I'm not making jokes (apart from that bit of ironly on the end - but if they can't deal with it on a timescale of months for something so crucial ro rUK then ...). It's not what I think but based on discussions here on PB and elsewhere in 2013-14.
Objectivcely -
Nuke subs are (or until very recently were) routinely based at Plymouth ('Guz'). It's the magazines and missiles that are the problem.
If you knew Scotland you would realise the utter hatred for Faslane in Scotland. Almost every MP and MSP is dead set against it, except Jackie Baillie and the Tories. It would be amazing were it not to be closed down at 00:01 on independence day. Nobody could sanely allow a foreign base of that kind to remain 30 miles from the largest city. But also from rUK point of view, it has to close anyway. Its geography makes it an impossible enclave in a different country. Just keeping the sea lane open and disinfecting them when boomers go in and out would be a major task for the RN, and an unnexeccary addition to the RSN's taskings.
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...
I see the great Boris Johnson reset has begun with him saying something bloody stupid, followed shortly thereafter by saying something bloody stupid.
Conservative MPs who may be reading this: the time to change course is before your ship strikes the rocks. Throw that dopey sod overboard and save both yourselves and the nation much woe.
It shouldn't need saying but I'll say it anyway: Scotland trading the UK for the EU is not a like for like swap, yet alone a better one.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
What I am hearing is that Scotland holds all the cards.
The UK's main interests would be in securing its territorial waters, the GIUK gap, membership of NATO, a mututak defence alliance, and cooperation on security and intelligence - maybe turning five eyes into six eyes - because within seconds of this being announced Russia is going to try to drive a giant hot wedge between the newly independent Scotland and the rUK. It would be in Scotland's interest too, provided the more batty SNP'ers can restrain their reflexive anti-Englishness.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
Wonder how the negotiations over Trident and Faslane would go? Would cost billions to relocate and take a fair bit of time. And yet SNP are, so far as I am aware, committed to banishing nuclear weapons from Scotland's territory and a lot of its support is premised on carrying that policy out.
I'd imagine it'd need 5-10 years to do that.
At the end of the day the submarines need new berths and ports to be built first plus all the servicing and ancillary facilities and you can't go much faster than that.
No, the boats don't. Plenty of rtoom for nuke boats in Pompey and Guz. It's the nukes and missiles that need bunkers and handling. But that's just concrete - a doddle for the London government to organise.
So, you think it could all be done in weeks then? Or do you just not want to think about how the pragmatics of how difficult it would be and would prefer to just make jokes about Westminster instead?
I'm no expert but I understand it would be a hugely expensive operation. Thousands of people work at Faslane. Moreover, US unlikely to be impressed by a NATO candidate seeking to disable rUK's nuclear deterrence. NATO is a nuclear alliance at the end of the day. I think the nukes and subs will stay whatever SNP tell their supporters.
MoD said 512 workers at Faslane in 2014. Amd mostd of the crews just go home down south.
Eleven council areas are to move from level 3 to level 4 coronavirus restrictions, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says.
The change will take place from 18:00 Friday and will be for a "strictly limited" period.
She said she knows this news is "disappointing" and will "demand more sacrifice from all of us", but that the "end is within grasp".
Nineteen council areas will see no change this week and two areas will move down from level 3 to level 2.
The Scottish government has taken account of factors including case number and the trends in each area when deciding which level they should be in, said Ms Sturgeon.
First, push a third option: devolution of 50% of taxes (ie pretty much everything apart from income tax and national insurance), ability to borrow etc. Not quite full-fiscal autonomy, but close.
Second: set up conditions towards a grown up electoral choice. Not simple majoritarianism. Learn the lessons of Brexit. Multi-choice, or multi-round, with a threshold for change.
Third: find pro-Union civil groups.
Fourth: Relocate, or create new, Union-wide institutions eg U.K. Govt departments; Scottish outpost and seat on Bank of *Britain*; Artic Co-operation Council; etc.
Fifth: Ensure the complexities (per Casino’s email) are confidently vocalised. Brexit actually gives truth to “Project Fear”, makes this story more valid.
Sixth: Ensure proper focus on national press on SNP’s underperformance in key areas.
Don’t really see the “Minister for the Union” doing or thinking about any of this stuff.
1, 2, most of 4, and definitely 5 are about appealing to voters' intellects. Please don't try it. As for 6, I'm not sure what you mean by the national press, but for many in Scotland, including many Unionists, the British press is the "English" press. Of course it isn't any such thing, but that's the common view north of the border. 6 is good though, and stronger words might be used than "underperformance". The SNP has been godawful running the Scottish government, and that's not the fault of "Westminster" to use SNP parlance. It's their own fault.
I would expand 3. What is needed is to make the Union cuddly - actually to bolster cultural institutions that strengthen and modernise it. No government has understood this for as long as I can remember, although I recall that David Cameron a matter of days before the indyref did get a smidgeon of a clue in his head when he had the saltire raised over Downing Street. "Bank of Britain" is also long overdue, and a clear case of something that should be done right away, no ifs, no buts. But there are many other cultural things that can be done. There needs to be a cultural campaign to build friendship and understanding among the home nations.
The trouble with this argument about "The SNP has been godawful running the Scottish government" is that those arguments have been knocking around for a decade, and they demonstrably haven't worked. The SNP keep scooping the votes by the lorryload. I have my own diagnosis about that, but I'll keep that to myself for now. But you need to recognise that there is a rolling electoral rebuttal to what you say, and it's pretty hard to dismiss.
Comments
Nationalism was a 19th century thing too.
I just meant “the rise of nationalist sentiment as a significant force”.
I did not know that about Keir Hardie.
The bigger questions (which were left unanswered) were how to address the slow cracks as an alternative and far closer political centre of gravity developed for Scotland, and how and when Scotland and Westminster might manage political divergence in future.
The New Labour Government never really bothered to answer these - and stoked English resentment on top as well by failing to engage with the West Lothian question - as they assumed they'd always hold the balance of power.
My point was simply "there is no money".
Immigrant-Founded Moderna Leading The Way In Covid-19 Response
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/08/11/immigrant-founded-moderna-leading-the-way-in-covid-19-response/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/11/17/least-cummings-realised-things-need-change-does-boris/
I defer to no one in delight over the demise of the Sage of Barnard Castle, but he was at least right on recognizing science spending, R&D and regional investment problems.
Although why we would want to “get away” without devolution I don’t know.
Within the context of the grossly over-centralised Westminster set up, devolution unto itself makes sense. The question is rather what kind and how deep.
My recollection of 1997 was, apart from the Conservatives, everyone else had (eventually) lined up behind the Constitutional Convention and wanted devolution.
The referendum vote that autumn was pretty decisive - every region voted Yes.
There seemed a sense that after eighteen years of being "ruled" from London with successive Secretaries of State acting more like Governors, it was time to re-assert some autonomy in domestic affairs. The Poll Tax had been a political disaster for Scottish Conservatives and while Major had done well to rally the cause in 1992, the 1997 election really was an extinction event for Scottish Conservatives.
Indeed, the proposed Parliament gave the Tories a way back but few, I suspect, envisaged the events of the next twenty years. Indeed, I suspect some believed the granting of devolution would knock back the SNP but it was a classic case of "give an inch take a foot and before you know it you haven't got a leg to stand on".
Hindsight is a marvellous thing and it's easy to forget the London Mayoral referendum also came out of the 1997 victory - again the Conservatives were opposed but while it could be argued apathy was the real winner, the fact was there was no strength behind the NO campaign.
I don't hear anyone on the Conservative side advocating abolition of the London Mayoralty but it's not a powerful post in and of itself though it conveys a high political profile on the holder as Boris Johnson will be well aware.
Ditto anyone who has promoted Brexit.
Any sort of "revolution" in R&D will go by the wayside as it just won't ever be a priority to enough people, especially those who feel their roles will be threatened, and there will the constant campaigns for spending to be diverted to hungry kids etc.
The government needed somebody who really understand this on it from day one and told we are backing this come what may.
Barnett money goes to Scotland currently. If it wasn't for Barnett then Northern seats would get relatively more money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/politics/a-popular-political-site-made-a-sharp-right-turn-what-steered-it.html
And didn't we cover all this ground this morning ?
Dawn French returns to the titular role, as vicar Geraldine Grainger, for the 10-minute episodes.
They will air after repeats of the classic sitcom and are to show how Geraldine has been delivering monthly sermons on Zoom, and talking to local primary school children online.
The show's creator Richard Curtis said: "Like every village in the country, there's been a lot happening in Dibley this year - and Dawn has got a lot to say about it."
-------
Sounds we are going to get a political lecture.
The UK as a member was putting in (nominally) up to £20bn a year into the EU budget and getting less than £10bn back in regional development, aid and grants. That was less than 3% of the entire UK budget of over £600bn. Remember: most EU money goes on the CAP, maintaining its institutions and governance, running the single market and some small development aid. That's it.
By contrast Scotland gets huge fiscal transfers from the UK Government which also pays for its pensions and social security (very expensive) defence, foreign affairs and backs up all of it with an independent monetary policy and stable currency widely traded on the world stage. It absolutely would not continue to do so if Scotland became independent; she would be on her own.
And Scotland does over 60% of its trade with the UK, with the rest of the EU far behind, so the two are not remotely comparable. It'd be a huge economic shock. And that's before you get to the logistics and geography of trade too - it's an awful long (and slow) way to ship goods into the Clyde and the Forth, and the vast majority would have to transit rUK forevermore. Scotland merrily casting off the UK for happier waters, never to have to worry about it again, it's just a fantasy - it's barmy.
Scottish independence wouldn't just be like Brexit. It would be like Brexit on LSD, Ectasy, Crack Cocaine and Amphetamines all washed down with meths.
Now, identity is a powerful thing and Scots may decide that's all worth it to ultimately, one day, get to where Ireland has - or similar - and I don't think rUK should stand in the way if that's what Scots really want. But let's not pretend it won't be an extraordinarily painful and difficult process, with a significant drop in the standard of living first, please.
I'm getting a whiff of the old "the financial crash was caused by Bill Clinton making poor people buy houses" vibe about it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54974373
Captain Hindsight complaint incoming.....lets not forget the Labour dodgy dossier and demands the government pay people who didn't have any stock nor any record working with Chinese suppliers, like football agents.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/07/28/scotland-debt/
Many Welsh thought (and still do) that they had a secure cultural identity and preferred laws made as one for the legal entity of England & Wales in Westminster rather than complicating it with a busybody assembly in Cardiff on top with all the expense that goes with it.
As much as Brexit, I think Covid is an event of wonder that allows for all sorts of magical things to happen.
Do you feel "English and Welsh"?
Have I misread?
Your original comment "We don't need to "come together", we need people to look after themselves first and foremost" sounded a little unbalanced, which is why I commented.
It is interesting that Asian countries have struck a different balance between cooperation and competition than the West, and the consequence, ironically, is that the East will out compete the West, like Homo Sapiens out competed the Neanderthals.
But, it won't be writing very large cheques for pensions and social security in return off the back of remaining UK taxpayers anymore.
Why would it?
China’s military used microwave weapons to force Indian troops to retreat during a months-long border standoff in the Himalayas, according to an account that has emerged in Beijing.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-turns-ladakh-battleground-with-india-into-a-microwave-oven-6tlwtrtzz
https://www.thenational.scot/news/15236862.ian-murray-backs-tactical-voting-for-tories-to-keep-snp-out/
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1328696351497007104?s=19
Trump spent four years bitching at the DoJ that it should arrest Hillary - and for what? What did he achieve?
If Trump has broken laws then let the FBI and DoJ impartially investigate and prove it. It doesn't need the President trying to put his thumb on the scales.
First, push a third option: devolution of 50% of taxes (ie pretty much everything apart from income tax and national insurance), ability to borrow etc. Not quite full-fiscal autonomy, but close.
Second: set up conditions towards a grown up electoral choice. Not simple majoritarianism. Learn the lessons of Brexit. Multi-choice, or multi-round, with a threshold for change.
Third: find pro-Union civil groups.
Fourth: Relocate, or create new, Union-wide institutions eg U.K. Govt departments; Scottish outpost and seat on Bank of *Britain*; Artic Co-operation Council; etc.
Fifth: Ensure the complexities (per Casino’s email) are confidently vocalised. Brexit actually gives truth to “Project Fear”, makes this story more valid.
Sixth: Ensure proper focus on national press on SNP’s underperformance in key areas.
Don’t really see the “Minister for the Union” doing or thinking about any of this stuff.
Incidentally, Scotland currently exports more manufactured goods to the EU than it does to the rest of the UK - it's only by adding bulk products (especially agricultural) that the balance reverses and then Financial Services makes up the rest of the final total.
Getaway Trump!!
Should finish a distant 2nd but if HappyGoLucky wins owners will demand a Stewards Enquiry
Should Big Pharma profit from Covid?
https://unherd.com/2020/11/should-big-pharma-profit-from-covid/
At the end of the day the submarines need new berths and ports to be built first plus all the servicing and ancillary facilities and you can't go much faster than that.
Five eyes isn't relevant to that and nor would a bilateral defence treaty be.
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1328696346057072640?s=20
As for 6, I'm not sure what you mean by the national press, but for many in Scotland, including many Unionists, the British press is the "English" press. Of course it isn't any such thing, but that's the common view north of the border. 6 is good though, and stronger words might be used than "underperformance". The SNP has been godawful running the Scottish government, and that's not the fault of "Westminster" to use SNP parlance. It's their own fault.
I would expand 3. What is needed is to make the Union cuddly - actually to bolster cultural institutions that strengthen and modernise it. No government has understood this for as long as I can remember, although I recall that David Cameron a matter of days before the indyref did get a smidgeon of a clue in his head when he had the saltire raised over Downing Street. "Bank of Britain" is also long overdue, and a clear case of something that should be done right away, no ifs, no buts. But there are many other cultural things that can be done. There needs to be a cultural campaign to build friendship and understanding among the home nations.
Scotland has a lot of autonomy in the UK and it really is the best of both worlds. Inside the EU it would have a seat at the table but it wouldn't be very influential - under QMV it would usually have to go along with decisions rather than make them.
I think EEA membership would largely address most of the practical frustrations of EU exit for Scotland, although it might not ameliorate the political damage.
I know that first thing this morning I pointed out that Shagger is a crap politician. I know that almost impossibly stupid things happen like the Four Seasons Total Landscaping fiasco. But that they are still banging this particular drum is starting to feel like it is deliberate.
Nobody I know speaks Welsh. In some places it's the first language.
There are places where Plaid Cymru are nothing, and places were they maintain a stable plurality.
There are steelworks and sleepy villages.
There are people who spend their Sunday mornings in worship, and other who spend them puking into the gutter in St Mary's Street (and I feel sorry for both)
There is no Welsh cultural identity.
He took a rapid turnaround lateral flow test on Monday as part of a pilot scheme for No 10 staff.
Moreover, US unlikely to be impressed by a NATO candidate seeking to disable rUK's nuclear deterrence. NATO is a nuclear alliance at the end of the day. I think the nukes and subs will stay whatever SNP tell their supporters.
On a related subject you might like to consider whether bets now being placed on the contest are actually valid. Bookmakers operate under the general principle that bets placed after an event has finished and a winner declared are automatically void. It's a good rule and you can see why it is in operation.
I should think there is a good case for saying all Presidential markets should be closed and settled and anyone now betting is doing so on an event that has finished.
In a way, Betfair have already conceded this by settling a number of the markets, including most of the individual States. Unless they can indicate what they are waiting for and how their rules indicate that in certain areas the result is not yet known, they are in danger of running into some serious litigation.
As my old HM used to say to me: 'If you can't be right, at least be consistent.' Betfair are in danger of appearing wrong AND inconsistent.
Objectivcely -
Nuke subs are (or until very recently were) routinely based at Plymouth ('Guz'). It's the magazines and missiles that are the problem.
If you knew Scotland you would realise the utter hatred for Faslane in Scotland. Almost every MP and MSP is dead set against it, except Jackie Baillie and the Tories. It would be amazing were it not to be closed down at 00:01 on independence day. Nobody could sanely allow a foreign base of that kind to remain 30 miles from the largest city. But also from rUK point of view, it has to close anyway. Its geography makes it an impossible enclave in a different country. Just keeping the sea lane open and disinfecting them when boomers go in and out would be a major task for the RN, and an unnexeccary addition to the RSN's taskings.
Conservative MPs who may be reading this: the time to change course is before your ship strikes the rocks. Throw that dopey sod overboard and save both yourselves and the nation much woe.
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/cartoons/donald-trump-election-concession-white-house-joe-biden-succession-20201117.html
The change will take place from 18:00 Friday and will be for a "strictly limited" period.
She said she knows this news is "disappointing" and will "demand more sacrifice from all of us", but that the "end is within grasp".
Nineteen council areas will see no change this week and two areas will move down from level 3 to level 2.
The Scottish government has taken account of factors including case number and the trends in each area when deciding which level they should be in, said Ms Sturgeon.
TOOOOOOOOO CONFUSING.....
I have my own diagnosis about that, but I'll keep that to myself for now. But you need to recognise that there is a rolling electoral rebuttal to what you say, and it's pretty hard to dismiss.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1328706922967609344?s=20