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?
Well of course there is that. And cheese on toast.
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?
Only if you think being a Unionist and Eurosceptic are fundamentally incompatible positions.
As I've said before I view the UK as a united country with a common nationality and identity, but I objected to the EU ultimately attempting to impose the same at a European level.
I accept others disagree but I don't think that's inconsistent, and I wanted a detachment from the EU that could be accepted by all of the UK - which is why I supported May's Deal which looked to take that into account.
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.
Since turnaround is fairplay its worth noting that leftists for the past decade have been insisting that the Tories have been godawful running the UK government and yet the Tories keep scooping votes by the lorryload.
Indeed the Tory vote share in England in 2019 was not just up for the 6th successive General Election (and the 4th successive that led to a Tory PM) but what is little remarked upon is the Tories in England got a higher vote share than the SNP did in Scotland.
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.
I get the emotion. But your timescales for removal are just wishful thinking.
They would no doubt go eventually (following which you'd still have the luxury of sheltering under a rUK and US nuclear umbrella as part of NATO) but I wouldn't kid yourself if wouldn't be a complex and lengthy project.
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.
If the Tories had pivoted to EEA immediately after the Brexit referendum I think it could have stemmed the anger in Scotland, but it's too late now and in any case isn't on the table. I think you're wrong about Scotland's relative autonomy inside the EU vs the UK. After all, whatever autonomy Scotland enjoyed inside the UK it has also enjoyed inside the EU (and even now inside the transition arrangement). I cannot think of anything that the EU has ever imposed on Scotland against its will as significant as the Brexit imposed on it by the UK. Can you?
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.
If the base closes it will be a lot more than 512 jobs going.
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.
Well put Kinabalu. Glad you understood it.
The point is worth noting too that whether we want to do things differently might be different now, next year or in four, 10 or more years time. That's the whole point of having elections at regular intervals, we can change courses whenever we choose.
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.
Since turnaround is fairplay its worth noting that leftists for the past decade have been insisting that the Tories have been godawful running the UK government and yet the Tories keep scooping votes by the lorryload.
Indeed the Tory vote share in England in 2019 was not just up for the 6th successive General Election (and the 4th successive that led to a Tory PM) but what is little remarked upon is the Tories in England got a higher vote share than the SNP did in Scotland.
2019 SNP Scotland 45.0% 2019 Tories England 47.2%
Spot on. The one minor quibble is that the above is worth noting not just for the leftists. Liberals too.
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.
I get the emotion. But your timescales for removal are just wishful thinking.
They would no doubt go eventually (following which you'd still have the luxury of sheltering under a rUK and US nuclear umbrella as part of NATO) but I wouldn't kid yourself if wouldn't be a complex and lengthy project.
Not my emotion - but actual politics. Something will have to give, and I'm not at all sure what. It will also depend on the wider political context at the time.
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?
Well of course there is that. And cheese on toast.
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?
I knew a guy who was Welsh for rugby and English for football. Never understood that one.
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.
But you can understand whenever someone becomes president that they suddenly quite like the doctrine that presidents are above the law - even after they leave office.
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.
If the base closes it will be a lot more than 512 jobs going.
Nobody's suggesting that the base closes - just that the nuke subs go. It was a normal naval base before and would be a normal naval base again.
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?
Only if you think being a Unionist and Eurosceptic are fundamentally incompatible positions.
As I've said before I view the UK as a united country with a common nationality and identity, but I objected to the EU ultimately attempting to impose the same at a European level.
I accept others disagree but I don't think that's inconsistent, and I wanted a detachment from the EU that could be accepted by all of the UK - which is why I supported May's Deal which looked to take that into account.
I don't view them as fundamentally incompatible, but what I do find ironic is the logic is interchangeable.
The difference as you say is that you view the UK as a united country with a common nationality and identity . . . however as is clear others don't. I consider my nationality and identity to be English, others consider it to be Scottish etc - while a miniscule minority considered theirs to be European.
Your logic that Scotland has a lot of autonomy within the UK and it really is the best of both worlds is comparable to Cameron's logic that the UK has a lot of autonomy within the EU and it really is the best of both worlds.
Ultimately the one thing I don't think we are as a country is united. That's not necessarily a bad thing, there is strength in division and diversity.
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.
Tbh I'm not really seeing any difference between the combatively incompetent regime full of Cummings and the new, smarter, conciliatory regime that has supposedly ejaculated Cummings.
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.
It's not. The feds can't stop NYS investigating or prosecuting Trump for state crimes once he leaves office.
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...
Not always. At PHE some staff are tested every couple of days after an exposure to an active case, and if negative can work on site.
Almost weeing laughing at LBC. James O'Brien has some lunatic woman on saying that the Bible says that Barack Obama is a Satanist and that the pox vaccine is going to be full of Satan-controlled nanochips.
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.
Well put Kinabalu. Glad you understood it.
The point is worth noting too that whether we want to do things differently might be different now, next year or in four, 10 or more years time. That's the whole point of having elections at regular intervals, we can change courses whenever we choose.
I pride myself on understanding and correctly expressing opposing views.
On the timeframe, sure, but in long run we're all dead. We left now so it would be a bit weak if we don't get around for ages to doing anything really big that we couldn’t have done as members.
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.
Some of us made a habit of not attending lectures...
I don't think devolution per se is a bad thing. The bad thing is that it has been a platform for dishonest nationalists in Scotland to con people into believing they are "progressive" ( a lie) and respectable (another lie) and to perpetuate the biggest lie of all that Scotland has been disadvantaged by being a part of the UK, when in reality the Scots (and their decendents) have been massively overrepresented at all levels of government and the establishment every year since 1707.
The big problem for Tories is that the nationalists are playing from the very same divisive playbook that Brexiteers did. Brexiteers and nationalists are rotten peas in the same nasty pod.
you can always guarantee this complete bellend will be on peddling his garbage, the same brain again and you would be dangerous.
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.
I think Boris was right but very wrong politically and it just adds to the chaos at the heart of this government.
Boris is not the person for this pandemic and I really want to see a change of leader but that is upto his fellow mps
I do feel a little politically homeless at present, as none of the parties inspire me.
Indeed there is a rumour that Corbyn has apologised paving the way to re-joining labour. If that is true that is a big mistake by Starmer
On Scotland, brexit and covid together with Boris has opened the way at the very least to another referendum which I believe needs to be agreed for sometime in 2022 but I would favour a two part referendum, one for the principle and a second on the deal to avoid the despair that is currently being seen.
It must be remembered, as I have said on countless occasions, the nationalists have been agitating for decades as I recall those day in the 1950s when Wendy Wood would paint 'Scotland' across the middle of the Berwick road bridge in the early hours of the morning, and often repeat it
Having lived in Berwick from the ages of 9 -17 I am well aware of the history of Scotland v England and of course Berwick itself has changed hands 13 times
The point that must be remembered is that the present clamour has played into the SNP's narrative and of course even if we had not voted for Brexit the demand to leave the union would still be the DNA of the SNP
And on covid my wife and I have made the difficult decision that for Christmas Day we will isolate from the family to limit risk of us catching the disease as at our ages, and with my copd, it could be deadly. It is a hard decision and one that one of my grandchildren called for Christmas to be cancelled, because Papa and Grandma will not be present on the special day
Times are hard for so many but my wife and I count our blessings with a lovely home and an understanding family
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.
Well put Kinabalu. Glad you understood it.
The point is worth noting too that whether we want to do things differently might be different now, next year or in four, 10 or more years time. That's the whole point of having elections at regular intervals, we can change courses whenever we choose.
I pride myself on understanding and correctly expressing opposing views.
On the timeframe, sure, but in long run we're all dead. We left now so it would be a bit weak if we don't get around for ages to doing anything really big that we couldn’t have done as members.
It wouldn't be weak at all.
The Irish mirrored the UK in much the did for decades after independence. Not everything, but much.
The Canadians mirrror the US in much they do, but have some considerable difference too.
The UK already differs in significant aspects from the EU and always did. That variance will grow as time goes on as they continue to integrate and we continue to diverge. But it will be evolution not revolution.
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.
If the base closes it will be a lot more than 512 jobs going.
A naval base will still be needed for the modest Scottish navythere should be an immediate increase in the number of surface vessels based in home waters.
Mr. City, worth pointing out the EU referendum was due to sceptic electoral pressure.
The desire for Scottish independence, however, rose significantly after (and due to) devolution.
MD it was around long before devolution, since 1707 in fact.
And if you halve the time you get, for instance, the National Association for the Vindication of Scotland's Rights [under the Union Treaty), in the 1850s (a Tory-linked organization, believe it or not).
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.
Prior to the pandemic over 99% of PPE was imported.
During the pandemic usage of PPE shot up over 50-fold.
Currently PPE supply is 70% domestically produced.
By my maths that means that domestic PPE supply has shot up by approximately 350,000%
That some of those supplying PPE now were not at the start of the year should not be a shock. They have stepped into the void to supply both PPE that was previously being imported - or quite frankly was never needed previously.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
Did you miss the fact a recount is already ongoing where it is required? It is well underway already.
There are laws around recounts and they're being followed where it is appropriate to do so. Won't change the result though, but it is already happening.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
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.
Hi Peter. Betfair's rules for the six state markets they've still got open say the winner will be the political party that wins the popular vote, whereas for the national market they say they will settle on the person who receives a majority of the "projected" Electoral College votes.
"Project" is a strange choice of word. I thought networks "projected" before they "called", and they've already "called". Anyway hopefully we will know by 14 December.
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.
Prior to the pandemic over 99% of PPE was imported.
During the pandemic usage of PPE shot up over 50-fold.
Currently PPE supply is 70% domestically produced.
By my maths that means that domestic PPE supply has shot up by approximately 350,000%
That some of those supplying PPE now were not at the start of the year should not be a shock. They have stepped into the void to supply both PPE that was previously being imported - or quite frankly was never needed previously.
How much useable PPE gifted to China earlier this year?
How much of the urgent operational requirement contracting ended up tax payers money handed to the chumocracy?
Demos = people cracy = rule.
Chums are people I suppose. And it all had to be done in a hurry. So I guess you are right. No problem here.
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Maybe in your jaundiced opinion , certainly not for Scots. Typical pompous sneering opinion that explains why we want to be out from under the jackboot.
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.
Hi Peter. Betfair's rules for the six state markets they've still got open say the winner will be the political party that wins the popular vote, whereas for the national market they say they will settle on the person who receives a majority of the "projected" Electoral College votes.
"Project" is a strange choice of word. I thought networks "projected" before they "called", and they've already "called". Anyway hopefully we will know by 14 December.
It isn't the first time Betfair have got themselves into a tangle over settlement rules, and Paddy Power are every bit as bad in this respect. The contradictions in their settlement of the US Election markets are all too apparent and have been widely commented on here.
I really do think they could get themselves into serious trouble if they continue to trade markets where the outcome is already in plain view.
Almost weeing laughing at LBC. James O'Brien has some lunatic woman on saying that the Bible says that Barack Obama is a Satanist and that the pox vaccine is going to be full of Satan-controlled nanochips.
Didn’t David Cameron settle the West Lothian question once and for all with EVEL? Those who warned his change was bad, well, it seems to have settled down quite nicely.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
Time for healing doesn't mean setting aside normal processes just because a vinegar-faced loser thinks it's unfair that so many people voted against him. Trump's ego is cracked open, but that's his own problem. L'homme petit mains petites had a great fall, and it's not up to the all the states' horses and all the states' men to even try to put it together again.
Mr. Puck, it's as bizarre as the refusal of the political class to look at contributory benefits (with a clause for those born here or long term residents to avoid catching Britons out) to shoot the migration fox.
An English Parliament is the obvious answer. And yet, whilst Wales (which was never an independent nation state) and Scotland have defined borders that are sacrosanct, the only thing politicians have even considered is carving England into bits.
The same is true of media types. The BBC's Home Editor (Easton? Name escapes me) had a wibble about this that was very telling. Went to the southwest. Presented options of a Cornish-Devonian assembly to people. Or a Southwestern assembly. The idea of an English Parliament never entered the man's head.
There is power in art, even bad art. The prospect of three (three!) episodes of the Vicar of Dibley is the most depressing thing I've seen or heard all day.
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Maybe in your jaundiced opinion , certainly not for Scots. Typical pompous sneering opinion that explains why we want to be out from under the jackboot.
One thing I do not understand if it is an act of union. Why can it not be ended by Scotland if they do not any longer want to be part of it anymore.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
It's not Bidens responsibility to prove himself innocent, its Trumps responsibility to prove there were problems. If there were as many as he says it wont be difficult to prove will 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.
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.
I quite like vicar of dibley . And to be fair, if anyone is going to start lecturing people a character who is a vicar makes sense.
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?
I knew a guy who was Welsh for rugby and English for football. Never understood that one.
The Romans regarded the Welsh and English to be the Britons and excluded the Scott’s.
About two millennia later, welsh and English vote for brexit and the Scott’s didn’t. There’s your border.
Almost weeing laughing at LBC. James O'Brien has some lunatic woman on saying that the Bible says that Barack Obama is a Satanist and that the pox vaccine is going to be full of Satan-controlled nanochips.
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.
I quite like vicar of dibley . And to be fair, if anyone is going to start lecturing people a character who is a vicar makes sense.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
Classic. Bidens at fault for not fighting hard enough.
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.
It's not. The feds can't stop NYS investigating or prosecuting Trump for state crimes once he leaves office.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
This is the most ridiculous fantasy. Biden has no power to conduct an 'audit' even if he wished to do so.
It is - as Georgia is demonstrating - a matter for the states.
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Maybe in your jaundiced opinion , certainly not for Scots. Typical pompous sneering opinion that explains why we want to be out from under the jackboot.
One thing I do not understand if it is an act of union. Why can it not be ended by Scotland if they do not any longer want to be part of it anymore.
Well it might depend if in making such a union the individual parties give up that sort of power. Seems pretty common for countries to treat themselves as indissoluble. Of course in practical terms if it's what the area wants it wont matter in the end even if a law says it can't be done.
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?
I knew a guy who was Welsh for rugby and English for football. Never understood that one.
The Romans regarded the Welsh and English to be the Britons and excluded the Scott’s.
About two millennia later, welsh and English vote for brexit and the Scott’s didn’t. There’s your border.
Slight problem, the Scots were in Ireland. No wondere they weren't regarded as Britons. It was the Welsh and Picts in Scotland. Not sure if Picts counted as Britons ...
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
This is the most ridiculous fantasy. Biden has no power to conduct an 'audit' even if he wished to do so.
It is - as Georgia is demonstrating - a matter for the states.
It's a way of giving credence to Trumps claims whilst not being too blatant about doing so. Just asking questions, but why won't Biden just do X and prove Trump wrong, eh? Makes you wonder. And so on.
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.
If the base closes it will be a lot more than 512 jobs going.
A naval base will still be needed for the modest Scottish navythere should be an immediate increase in the number of surface vessels based in home waters.
And you can have these back as well:
It'll certainly be modest. The Royal Navy is completely integrated and inter-dependent. You can't just salami-slice 8% from it and have a viable force. Likewise the RAF.
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.
Hi Peter. Betfair's rules for the six state markets they've still got open say the winner will be the political party that wins the popular vote, whereas for the national market they say they will settle on the person who receives a majority of the "projected" Electoral College votes.
"Project" is a strange choice of word. I thought networks "projected" before they "called", and they've already "called". Anyway hopefully we will know by 14 December.
It isn't the first time Betfair have got themselves into a tangle over settlement rules, and Paddy Power are every bit as bad in this respect. The contradictions in their settlement of the US Election markets are all too apparent and have been widely commented on here.
I really do think they could get themselves into serious trouble if they continue to trade markets where the outcome is already in plain view.
Imo Betfair's still open markets are analogous to its allowing betting on a photo-finish in horseracing. The race is over, we have seen the result, and can look at replays of the closing stages and freeze-frames of the finishing line. We are betting on the judge's interpretation of the official photo-finish print. Similarly in the election, we all know the result and are betting on whether a court judgement or recount will override it.
I think you are right that Betfair has landed here by accident rather than design, because fundamentally it does not understand the process and took no care to find out. So far, I have not seen a clear statement from Betfair about when they will settle the open markets or even what criteria it will use to decide when, so I think Betfair is still groping in the dark hoping something will come along. But as I say, I think the parallel with horseracing stands.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
This is the most ridiculous fantasy. Biden has no power to conduct an 'audit' even if he wished to do so.
It is - as Georgia is demonstrating - a matter for the states.
It's a way of giving credence to Trumps claims whilst not being too blatant about doing so. Just asking questions, but why won't Biden just do X and prove Trump wrong, eh? Makes you wonder. And so on.
I think better of MrEd than that. No doubt he'll see sense in time.
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.
I quite like vicar of dibley . And to be fair, if anyone is going to start lecturing people a character who is a vicar makes sense.
Most of the cast have sadly died?
hadn't even noticed Roger Lloyd-Pack's passing.
Alice's I can't believe it's not butter bit remains a genuinely wonderful bit of script writing.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
This is the most ridiculous fantasy. Biden has no power to conduct an 'audit' even if he wished to do so.
It is - as Georgia is demonstrating - a matter for the states.
It's a way of giving credence to Trumps claims whilst not being too blatant about doing so. Just asking questions, but why won't Biden just do X and prove Trump wrong, eh? Makes you wonder. And so on.
I think better of MrEd than that. No doubt he'll see sense in time.
Many give succour to the more malevolent unintentionally. Bottom line is as you've noted Biden doesn't have the level of input suggested anyway.
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Maybe in your jaundiced opinion , certainly not for Scots. Typical pompous sneering opinion that explains why we want to be out from under the jackboot.
One thing I do not understand if it is an act of union. Why can it not be ended by Scotland if they do not any longer want to be part of it anymore.
Something about it would be foolish to allow Scotland another chance to decide whether it wants to keep all that lovely self determination and power it has in Brexit UK just so it can rush into the arms of the oppressive EU that lets its members decide anytime they want whether to stay or go.
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
This is the most ridiculous fantasy. Biden has no power to conduct an 'audit' even if he wished to do so.
It is - as Georgia is demonstrating - a matter for the states.
I disagree. I think the thrust of what MrEd is saying is correct. Team Biden are rubbish at rebuttal. It doesn’t bode well going forward, opens up all sorts of opportunities for opponents if you acting like you are above it all, that things don’t need to be countered. The reason why the democrats lost the election (down ticket from the White House) is because they are perceived as patronising.
“If there is fraud on this scale why don’t they take the evidence into the courts” etc would help in the long run.
OT Barclaycard has just emailed me to say they are generously making its terms and conditions worse and raising minimum repayments but also that:
From 26 January 2021, we’ll be blocking any transactions made at a gambling establishment or on a gambling website, so if you try to use your card, it won’t go through.
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?
I knew a guy who was Welsh for rugby and English for football. Never understood that one.
The Romans regarded the Welsh and English to be the Britons and excluded the Scott’s.
About two millennia later, welsh and English vote for brexit and the Scott’s didn’t. There’s your border.
Slight problem, the Scots were in Ireland. No wondere they weren't regarded as Britons. It was the Welsh and Picts in Scotland. Not sure if Picts counted as Britons ...
I bet Neil Oliver thinks they were, even the stone age folk were Brits in his small, ahistorical book...
Mr. Puck, it's as bizarre as the refusal of the political class to look at contributory benefits (with a clause for those born here or long term residents to avoid catching Britons out) to shoot the migration fox.
An English Parliament is the obvious answer. And yet, whilst Wales (which was never an independent nation state) and Scotland have defined borders that are sacrosanct, the only thing politicians have even considered is carving England into bits.
The same is true of media types. The BBC's Home Editor (Easton? Name escapes me) had a wibble about this that was very telling. Went to the southwest. Presented options of a Cornish-Devonian assembly to people. Or a Southwestern assembly. The idea of an English Parliament never entered the man's head.
Out of interest, how many years do you think the UK has spent as a "nation" state? I would argue that you can't start the clock until the large imperial territories were gone, so maybe from the mid 60s onwards, and you possibly shouldn't count from when the EC became the EU in 1993.
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.
Hi Peter. Betfair's rules for the six state markets they've still got open say the winner will be the political party that wins the popular vote, whereas for the national market they say they will settle on the person who receives a majority of the "projected" Electoral College votes.
"Project" is a strange choice of word. I thought networks "projected" before they "called", and they've already "called". Anyway hopefully we will know by 14 December.
It isn't the first time Betfair have got themselves into a tangle over settlement rules, and Paddy Power are every bit as bad in this respect. The contradictions in their settlement of the US Election markets are all too apparent and have been widely commented on here.
I really do think they could get themselves into serious trouble if they continue to trade markets where the outcome is already in plain view.
Imo Betfair's still open markets are analogous to its allowing betting on a photo-finish in horseracing. The race is over, we have seen the result, and can look at replays of the closing stages and freeze-frames of the finishing line. We are betting on the judge's interpretation of the official photo-finish print. Similarly in the election, we all know the result and are betting on whether a court judgement or recount will override it.
I think you are right that Betfair has landed here by accident rather than design, because fundamentally it does not understand the process and took no care to find out. So far, I have not seen a clear statement from Betfair about when they will settle the open markets or even what criteria it will use to decide when, so I think Betfair is still groping in the dark hoping something will come along. But as I say, I think the parallel with horseracing stands.
I think the ambiguous rules are by design, because the uncertainty is very profitable for them. When the rules say "most projected Electoral College votes", the obvious and unanswered question is "projected by who?".
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?
I knew a guy who was Welsh for rugby and English for football. Never understood that one.
The Romans regarded the Welsh and English to be the Britons and excluded the Scott’s.
About two millennia later, welsh and English vote for brexit and the Scott’s didn’t. There’s your border.
Slight problem, the Scots were in Ireland. No wondere they weren't regarded as Britons. It was the Welsh and Picts in Scotland. Not sure if Picts counted as Britons ...
I bet Neil Oliver thinks they were, even the stone age folk were Brits in his small, ahistorical book...
The very fact that the Scottish Government entrusted Bannockburn and Culloden to him is a powerful argument against the Unionist fantasy of the SNP engaging in Blut und Boden or raking up past history for politicxal benefit (cf. Spitfires*, British Empire on which the Sun Never Sets, Kipling in Mandalay, Churchilol statues, etc. etc.)
*usually shown as a photo of a 302 or 303 Sqn one, you know, flown by furriners
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.
Hi Peter. Betfair's rules for the six state markets they've still got open say the winner will be the political party that wins the popular vote, whereas for the national market they say they will settle on the person who receives a majority of the "projected" Electoral College votes.
"Project" is a strange choice of word. I thought networks "projected" before they "called", and they've already "called". Anyway hopefully we will know by 14 December.
It isn't the first time Betfair have got themselves into a tangle over settlement rules, and Paddy Power are every bit as bad in this respect. The contradictions in their settlement of the US Election markets are all too apparent and have been widely commented on here.
I really do think they could get themselves into serious trouble if they continue to trade markets where the outcome is already in plain view.
Imo Betfair's still open markets are analogous to its allowing betting on a photo-finish in horseracing. The race is over, we have seen the result, and can look at replays of the closing stages and freeze-frames of the finishing line. We are betting on the judge's interpretation of the official photo-finish print. Similarly in the election, we all know the result and are betting on whether a court judgement or recount will override it.
I think you are right that Betfair has landed here by accident rather than design, because fundamentally it does not understand the process and took no care to find out. So far, I have not seen a clear statement from Betfair about when they will settle the open markets or even what criteria it will use to decide when, so I think Betfair is still groping in the dark hoping something will come along. But as I say, I think the parallel with horseracing stands.
I think the ambiguous rules are by design, because the uncertainty is very profitable for them. When the rules say "most projected Electoral College votes", the obvious and unanswered question is "projected by who?".
The certified election results one must now presume.
Mr. JohnL, there was a recent change preventing betting (by law) with credit cards, so presumably this is a debit card change?
Credit cards, I think. It might be when (or just before) the new law bites.
ETA it does illustrate another danger in the move to a cashless society, that HMG can just have a handful of payment card companies block transactions of which it disapproves: gambling; drugs; donations to the SNP.
Mr. Biv, the union of crowns happened in the 17th century, with the political union occurring in 1707. Since then, England, Wales, and Scotland have been unified.
An unkind gentleman might suggest your view that the country has only existed for less than three decades as being one of naughtiness.
Scottish independence is the ultimate "first world problem".
Maybe in your jaundiced opinion , certainly not for Scots. Typical pompous sneering opinion that explains why we want to be out from under the jackboot.
One thing I do not understand if it is an act of union. Why can it not be ended by Scotland if they do not any longer want to be part of it anymore.
Something about it would be foolish to allow Scotland another chance to decide whether it wants to keep all that lovely self determination and power it has in Brexit UK just so it can rush into the arms of the oppressive EU that lets its members decide anytime they want whether to stay or go.
I think Betfair is doing OK on the election, they should have had clearer rules though. They should settle up states when they certify election results. Perhaps there'll be some drama over that ? A 2nd Trump administration would be unconsionable now though and I think the US would quite literally go up in flames.
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?
I knew a guy who was Welsh for rugby and English for football. Never understood that one.
The Romans regarded the Welsh and English to be the Britons and excluded the Scott’s.
About two millennia later, welsh and English vote for brexit and the Scott’s didn’t. There’s your border.
Slight problem, the Scots were in Ireland. No wondere they weren't regarded as Britons. It was the Welsh and Picts in Scotland. Not sure if Picts counted as Britons ...
I bet Neil Oliver thinks they were, even the stone age folk were Brits in his small, ahistorical book...
So when in last two thousand years did the Scots move out of Ireland and make Scotland Scottish? Did all the Scott’s leave Ireland, or are some still there? What happened to the Picts, did the Vikings carry them off? Are Scott’s Celts? Where did all the Celts go?
I think Betfair is doing OK on the election, they should have had clearer rules though. They should settle up states when they certify election results. Perhaps there'll be some drama over that ? A 2nd Trump administration would be unconsionable now though and I think the US would quite literally go up in flames.
It is ridiculous to compare how they pay out to bookmakers do. Bookmakers sometimes pay out on events that haven't finished when the result looks a foregone conclusion, imagine if the exchange did that!
Or the democrats could agree to full comprehensive audits of all votes in all the disputed states in presence of representatives on both sides.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
He's already doesn't have a leg to stand on. The election is over and Biden won.
yeh but its a 'time for healing' though, right? that's what Biden said....Be the bigger man Joe. Give the guy his recount. LOL.
It wouldn't make much difference but there's no reason for Biden to help Trump with his objectives.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
Actually, Peter, I am not sure Biden's tactics are the right ones.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
This is the most ridiculous fantasy. Biden has no power to conduct an 'audit' even if he wished to do so.
It is - as Georgia is demonstrating - a matter for the states.
It's a way of giving credence to Trumps claims whilst not being too blatant about doing so. Just asking questions, but why won't Biden just do X and prove Trump wrong, eh? Makes you wonder. And so on.
I think better of MrEd than that. No doubt he'll see sense in time.
Many give succour to the more malevolent unintentionally. Bottom line is as you've noted Biden doesn't have the level of input suggested anyway.
@Nigelb and @kle4, I have been very clear at saying that, if Trump has got the evidence, he needs to present it, otherwise he needs to shut up and go. My point is not Trump, it's Biden. For a seasoned politician, he is acting with naivety to the point where it beggars belief. Yes, he cannot order a recount but that is more the reason for him to come out and say it because it would deflate the narrative immediately whilst making him looking Presidential and knowing that it couldn't be done anyway because it is not up to him.
As @gealbhan said, Biden's tactics have been bad on this one.
I think Betfair is doing OK on the election, they should have had clearer rules though. They should settle up states when they certify election results. Perhaps there'll be some drama over that ? A 2nd Trump administration would be unconsionable now though and I think the US would quite literally go up in flames.
It is ridiculous to compare how they pay out to bookmakers do. Bookmakers sometimes pay out on events that haven't finished when the result looks a foregone conclusion, imagine if the exchange did that!
Betfair have done that with settling New York State for the Democrats though
Comments
As I've said before I view the UK as a united country with a common nationality and identity, but I objected to the EU ultimately attempting to impose the same at a European level.
I accept others disagree but I don't think that's inconsistent, and I wanted a detachment from the EU that could be accepted by all of the UK - which is why I supported May's Deal which looked to take that into account.
Indeed the Tory vote share in England in 2019 was not just up for the 6th successive General Election (and the 4th successive that led to a Tory PM) but what is little remarked upon is the Tories in England got a higher vote share than the SNP did in Scotland.
2019 SNP Scotland 45.0%
2019 Tories England 47.2%
They would no doubt go eventually (following which you'd still have the luxury of sheltering under a rUK and US nuclear umbrella as part of NATO) but I wouldn't kid yourself if wouldn't be a complex and lengthy project.
I think you're wrong about Scotland's relative autonomy inside the EU vs the UK. After all, whatever autonomy Scotland enjoyed inside the UK it has also enjoyed inside the EU (and even now inside the transition arrangement). I cannot think of anything that the EU has ever imposed on Scotland against its will as significant as the Brexit imposed on it by the UK. Can you?
The point is worth noting too that whether we want to do things differently might be different now, next year or in four, 10 or more years time. That's the whole point of having elections at regular intervals, we can change courses whenever we choose.
The difference as you say is that you view the UK as a united country with a common nationality and identity . . . however as is clear others don't. I consider my nationality and identity to be English, others consider it to be Scottish etc - while a miniscule minority considered theirs to be European.
Your logic that Scotland has a lot of autonomy within the UK and it really is the best of both worlds is comparable to Cameron's logic that the UK has a lot of autonomy within the EU and it really is the best of both worlds.
Ultimately the one thing I don't think we are as a country is united. That's not necessarily a bad thing, there is strength in division and diversity.
all over in a few days. Trump without a leg to stand on.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8957745/Police-SUSPEND-spot-10-000-Covid-fines.html
On the timeframe, sure, but in long run we're all dead. We left now so it would be a bit weak if we don't get around for ages to doing anything really big that we couldn’t have done as members.
the same brain again and you would be dangerous.
Boris is not the person for this pandemic and I really want to see a change of leader but that is upto his fellow mps
I do feel a little politically homeless at present, as none of the parties inspire me.
Indeed there is a rumour that Corbyn has apologised paving the way to re-joining labour. If that is true that is a big mistake by Starmer
On Scotland, brexit and covid together with Boris has opened the way at the very least to another referendum which I believe needs to be agreed for sometime in 2022 but I would favour a two part referendum, one for the principle and a second on the deal to avoid the despair that is currently being seen.
It must be remembered, as I have said on countless occasions, the nationalists have been agitating for decades as I recall those day in the 1950s when Wendy Wood would paint 'Scotland' across the middle of the Berwick road bridge in the early hours of the morning, and often repeat it
Having lived in Berwick from the ages of 9 -17 I am well aware of the history of Scotland v England and of course Berwick itself has changed hands 13 times
The point that must be remembered is that the present clamour has played into the SNP's narrative and of course even if we had not voted for Brexit the demand to leave the union would still be the DNA of the SNP
And on covid my wife and I have made the difficult decision that for Christmas Day we will isolate from the family to limit risk of us catching the disease as at our ages, and with my copd, it could be deadly. It is a hard decision and one that one of my grandchildren called for Christmas to be cancelled, because Papa and Grandma will not be present on the special day
Times are hard for so many but my wife and I count our blessings with a lovely home and an understanding family
The Irish mirrored the UK in much the did for decades after independence. Not everything, but much.
The Canadians mirrror the US in much they do, but have some considerable difference too.
The UK already differs in significant aspects from the EU and always did. That variance will grow as time goes on as they continue to integrate and we continue to diverge. But it will be evolution not revolution.
And you can have these back as well:
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/90252/mod_resource/content/2/In bed with an elephant.pdf
During the pandemic usage of PPE shot up over 50-fold.
Currently PPE supply is 70% domestically produced.
By my maths that means that domestic PPE supply has shot up by approximately 350,000%
That some of those supplying PPE now were not at the start of the year should not be a shock. They have stepped into the void to supply both PPE that was previously being imported - or quite frankly was never needed previously.
There are laws around recounts and they're being followed where it is appropriate to do so. Won't change the result though, but it is already happening.
It is not entirely clear yet what these are but they certainly don't include contesting the election result. He was beat fair and square and knows it. His protestations are merely delaying tactics.
There are various reasons why he might be engaging in them. Perhaps he needs time to hide what he's been doing, or maybe to sow some more mischief, or maybe to extract some more money and prestige from his time in office. Or maybe he just wants to stay out of chokey a bit longer.
It will probably be a little while before we learn to what extent these are true or what other reasons he may have had. Meanwhile JB is right to play it cool, and we are right to mock the Great Orange Sore Loser. It's the very least he deserves.
"Project" is a strange choice of word. I thought networks "projected" before they "called", and they've already "called". Anyway hopefully we will know by 14 December.
How much of the urgent operational requirement contracting ended up tax payers money handed to the chumocracy?
Demos = people cracy = rule.
Chums are people I suppose. And it all had to be done in a hurry. So I guess you are right. No problem here.
They're almost over, and Trump is indeed without a leg to stand on.
One of Philip's sillier comments.
I really do think they could get themselves into serious trouble if they continue to trade markets where the outcome is already in plain view.
Trump's ego is cracked open, but that's his own problem. L'homme petit mains petites had a great fall, and it's not up to the all the states' horses and all the states' men to even try to put it together again.
An English Parliament is the obvious answer. And yet, whilst Wales (which was never an independent nation state) and Scotland have defined borders that are sacrosanct, the only thing politicians have even considered is carving England into bits.
The same is true of media types. The BBC's Home Editor (Easton? Name escapes me) had a wibble about this that was very telling. Went to the southwest. Presented options of a Cornish-Devonian assembly to people. Or a Southwestern assembly. The idea of an English Parliament never entered the man's head.
Why can it not be ended by Scotland if they do not any longer want to be part of it anymore.
Essentially, he has taken a half way house approach to things - he hasn't called out Trump's accusations as absolute bullsh1t forcefully but he hasn't called Trump's bluff, as Contrarian suggested, by going with a full audit.
As a result, he has allowed the message to gather hold on the Republican side that the election was stolen. Now, we can argue about whether he cares about that or not but what it does mean is that he is likely to have a very enthused core base of Trump voters, which is likely to punish the Democrats in 2022, especially given the redistricting in the House. In effect, we are likely to see 2018 reversed out, only potentially on a greater scale.
It also means he is likely to face a Republican Senate that will more obstructionist at every turn (yes, if that is possible) and which will be more inclined to pursue every nook and cranny over electoral fraud, Hunter Biden etc etc etc etc. If the GOP keep the Senate in 2022 and get the House (which doesn't seem too unrealistic), chances are there will be impeachment proceedings.
So, by not stamping on this hard, he has allowed a narrative to gain hold. I'm "sceptical" on Trump's claims but Biden's lack of aggressive counter-punching is the one thing that seems very strange in all this, especially given he knows how the game is played. The only possible explanation is that Biden is secretly pleased in some way to have a divided state of affairs with no cooperation because it gives him the perfect excuse to do nothing.
I understand Gordon Brown has indicated he wants to lead for the Union
About two millennia later, welsh and English vote for brexit and the Scott’s didn’t. There’s your border.
Hostage to fortune.
He's working through a process here.
"...and people say shes just a big pair of tits"
But I did read it and it does not surprise me
Biden has no power to conduct an 'audit' even if he wished to do so.
It is - as Georgia is demonstrating - a matter for the states.
So Johnson is probably right I suppose
I think you are right that Betfair has landed here by accident rather than design, because fundamentally it does not understand the process and took no care to find out. So far, I have not seen a clear statement from Betfair about when they will settle the open markets or even what criteria it will use to decide when, so I think Betfair is still groping in the dark hoping something will come along. But as I say, I think the parallel with horseracing stands.
No doubt he'll see sense in time.
Alice's I can't believe it's not butter bit remains a genuinely wonderful bit of script writing.
“If there is fraud on this scale why don’t they take the evidence into the courts” etc would help in the long run.
From 26 January 2021, we’ll be blocking any transactions made at a gambling establishment or on a gambling website, so if you try to use your card, it won’t go through.
I would argue that you can't start the clock until the large imperial territories were gone, so maybe from the mid 60s onwards, and you possibly shouldn't count from when the EC became the EU in 1993.
So maybe about 28 years or so?
*usually shown as a photo of a 302 or 303 Sqn one, you know, flown by furriners
ETA it does illustrate another danger in the move to a cashless society, that HMG can just have a handful of payment card companies block transactions of which it disapproves: gambling; drugs; donations to the SNP.
An unkind gentleman might suggest your view that the country has only existed for less than three decades as being one of naughtiness.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1328368210681458691
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1328725101077032961?s=20
They should settle up states when they certify election results. Perhaps there'll be some drama over that ?
A 2nd Trump administration would be unconsionable now though and I think the US would quite literally go up in flames.
What happened to the Picts, did the Vikings carry them off?
Are Scott’s Celts? Where did all the Celts go?
As @gealbhan said, Biden's tactics have been bad on this one.