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.
The Dems are up seats in the House and Senate on 2016.
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....
Do you have a source for that ?
For the percentages here: Thanks to the unprecedented domestic production of PPE, for items such gowns and FFP3 facemasks, 70 per cent of the expected demand for PPE will be met by UK manufacturers from December. Businesses have been supporting the national effort by creating hundreds of new jobs and reducing reliance on overseas companies. Before the pandemic, just 1 per cent of PPE was produced in the UK.
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.
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?
Scottish nationalism is essentially defined by their hatred of the English, and justified by fake historically inaccurate grievances. It is a very backward and negative creed.
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?
Scottish nationalism is essentially defined by their hatred of the English, and justified by fake historically inaccurate grievances. It is a very backward and negative creed.
Whereas your backward and negative hatred of any nationalist is what exactly?
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
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
Have they? oh dear
Yes there is enough out there for Trump in theory to overturn it, about the same odds he'll overturn Michigan in court.
The rate isn't declining fast enough with Christmas fast approaching. The idea is that by going into Tier 4 now they'll be able to lift the restrictions before Christmas and Chanukah etc rather than remaining in Tier 3 indefinitely.
The alternative is the Tier 3 remains into the New Year through the Festive period.
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?
Don't ask me, chum. I just know the Scots were parked in Ireland when the Romans were marching up and down on this side of the water. They moved over during the Dark Ages.
IIRC, a hereditary storyteller for the Irish kings ended up in the Outer Hebrides, his descendants still able to tell the stories to a folklorist not that long ago.
And you need to add the assorted Scandinavians and Angles to the mix. All blended together now.
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?
Scottish nationalism is essentially defined by their hatred of the English, and justified by fake historically inaccurate grievances. It is a very backward and negative creed.
Which side would you support in a referendum on a united Ireland?
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.
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?
Scottish nationalism is essentially defined by their hatred of the English, and justified by fake historically inaccurate grievances. It is a very backward and negative creed.
That must be why they have so many English members then.
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?
Scottish nationalism is essentially defined by their hatred of the English, and justified by fake historically inaccurate grievances. It is a very backward and negative creed.
You could be right, but I doubt you are, and in any case it’s hardly communicates a sense of respect for Scottish identity which is a necessary if not sufficient condition of maintaining the Union.
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
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 obsession with Neil Oliver is telling. Doesn't fit the stereotype, I guess. And stereotypes seem to be important to those invested in identity politics.
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
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?
Don't ask me, chum. I just know the Scots were parked in Ireland when the Romans were marching up and down on this side of the water. They moved over during the Dark Ages.
IIRC, a hereditary storyteller for the Irish kings ended up in the Outer Hebrides, his descendants still able to tell the stories to a folklorist not that long ago.
And you need to add the assorted Scandinavians and Angles to the mix. All blended together now.
Flitted over undercover of Dark Ages. Canny.
Isn’t DNA testing throwing many long held historical arguments under the bus? Will DNA provide conclusive answers and surprises
The rate isn't declining fast enough with Christmas fast approaching. The idea is that by going into Tier 4 now they'll be able to lift the restrictions before Christmas and Chanukah etc rather than remaining in Tier 3 indefinitely.
The alternative is the Tier 3 remains into the New Year through the Festive period.
Every single council area that's been put into tier 4 has above average cases per 100k and all bar one have high positivity rate. A 40% reduction is nice but that was from a terrifyingly high peak.
The boss of Moderna, the company behind one of the Covid vaccines whose initial trial results have recently been announced, has warned that long negotiations over purchasing the new vaccine will slow down deliveries to European countries.
Stephane Bancel told AFP news agency that other nations who have signed deals will get priority. The UK has already signed a deal with Moderna to supply five million doses from next spring.
---------------
The European Commission wants to reach a deal with Moderna for the supply of millions of doses of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate for a price below $25 (18.9 pounds) per dose, an EU official involved in the talks said.
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
That's an original take. What is interesting is how little of this dependence on history there is in Scottish indepednence circles in general, certainly in political discourse. Just one very telling example: suring the statue vandalising craze, someone vandalised the Bruce statue at Bannockburn field. Here, it caused a raised eyebrow and a shake of the head at the money the NTS would have to waste on getting a stone and a metal conservator out to clean it up. By contrast, in England, when someone vandalised some icon such as Mr Churchill ...
And one point - having a settled border and (in Scotland) a separate code of laws from before, as well as since, Union does actually count for a lot in practical terms,if you are arguing on what territory should be independent. .
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
And they can point to the fact the election process is still technically ongoing. Till what point though?
The rate isn't declining fast enough with Christmas fast approaching. The idea is that by going into Tier 4 now they'll be able to lift the restrictions before Christmas and Chanukah etc rather than remaining in Tier 3 indefinitely.
The alternative is the Tier 3 remains into the New Year through the Festive period.
I agree. What Sturgeon really wants to avoid is having worse restrictions than England for Christmas, so she's erring towards doing a bit too much now. (I'm surprised a couple of areas actually went down a level. I suppose she wanted to demonstrate that it isn't all one way.)
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
So when Saxons were battling Welsh, they were Saxons battling Romans? King Arthur being a Roman Knight?
I don't know who David Paton is, but he doesn't seem to have grasped the fact that the last few days of the cases by specimen date graph are based on incomplete data. If he had, then he'd see that there is not yet any indication that the cases in Glasgow are going down!
The rate isn't declining fast enough with Christmas fast approaching. The idea is that by going into Tier 4 now they'll be able to lift the restrictions before Christmas and Chanukah etc rather than remaining in Tier 3 indefinitely.
The alternative is the Tier 3 remains into the New Year through the Festive period.
I agree. What Sturgeon really wants to avoid is having worse restrictions than England for Christmas, so she's erring towards doing a bit too much now. (I'm surprised a couple of areas actually went down a level. I suppose she wanted to demonstrate that it isn't all one way.)
Yeah. At current easing ate we'd see things back to summer levels by April next year. A complete non starter to have Christmas at the levels that would imply.
So the brake need to be applied now. To be honest I was expecting more areas to go into Tier 4 today.
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 obsession with Neil Oliver is telling. Doesn't fit the stereotype, I guess. And stereotypes seem to be important to those invested in identity politics.
Obsession? I think I've only previously mentioned him twice this year, posting his wanky spitfire tweet and a response to you obsessing about him being victimised in the National. Imo Mr Oliver very much fits a stereotype. Do agree with him that Orkney was Britain's ancient capital? If so I might have to stick you into the same stereotypical basket of..well, let's not say deplorables...
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?
Don't ask me, chum. I just know the Scots were parked in Ireland when the Romans were marching up and down on this side of the water. They moved over during the Dark Ages.
IIRC, a hereditary storyteller for the Irish kings ended up in the Outer Hebrides, his descendants still able to tell the stories to a folklorist not that long ago.
And you need to add the assorted Scandinavians and Angles to the mix. All blended together now.
Flitted over undercover of Dark Ages. Canny.
Isn’t DNA testing throwing many long held historical arguments under the bus? Will DNA provide conclusive answers and surprises
I don't know enough about the current state to make a useful comment, sorry.
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
Yeah, when you created a half billion pound liability for yourself with ambiguous rules a certain level of caution is required.
I am now expecting it to be Electoral Votes casting day to get it settled.
So that I can get by 93 Pence profit on the market.
I don't know who David Paton is, but he doesn't seem to have grasped the fact that last few days of the cases by specimen graph are based on incomplete data. If he had, then he'd see that there is not yet any indication that the cases in Glasgow are going down!
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
Most people will be on 2% commission, and the big players less than that (or more but let's ignore premium charge here) and commission is only paid on net winnings rather than per bet, and most of the activity will be trading in and out rather than building positions.
So while you are right that Betfair makes money from keeping the market open, it will be nowhere near that much.
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
That's an original take. What is interesting is how little of this dependence on history there is in Scottish indepednence circles in general, certainly in political discourse. Just one very telling example: suring the statue vandalising craze, someone vandalised the Bruce statue at Bannockburn field. Here, it caused a raised eyebrow and a shake of the head at the money the NTS would have to waste on getting a stone and a metal conservator out to clean it up. By contrast, in England, when someone vandalised some icon such as Mr Churchill ...
And one point - having a settled border and (in Scotland) a separate code of laws from before, as well as since, Union does actually count for a lot in practical terms,if you are arguing on what territory should be independent. .
Once again, I sacrificed clarity because I was already beyond the limit of what most people can tolerate in post length. My intention was not to say that there aren't good arguments for Brexit, Welsh, or Scottish independence, but just to say that the "going back to X" narrative is crap and should be dismissed as such. We should distrust those who want to go back. But we should reserve the sternest kickings for those who want to go back to a fiction.
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
I think it's a lot less than £30m as the 5% are only charged on winnings, which furthermore are offset against losses when you have multiple bets on a market.
If someone puts £1 on Trump now, with somebody laying £15 against, that's £16 matched going into the grand total, but probably only £1 being won in the end (by the layer), for a £0.05 commission.
The rate isn't declining fast enough with Christmas fast approaching. The idea is that by going into Tier 4 now they'll be able to lift the restrictions before Christmas and Chanukah etc rather than remaining in Tier 3 indefinitely.
The alternative is the Tier 3 remains into the New Year through the Festive period.
I agree. What Sturgeon really wants to avoid is having worse restrictions than England for Christmas, so she's erring towards doing a bit too much now. (I'm surprised a couple of areas actually went down a level. I suppose she wanted to demonstrate that it isn't all one way.)
Remember also that Hogmanay (essentially New Year) is far more important in Scotland than south of the border. It is not just Christmas.
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
So when Saxons were battling Welsh, they were Saxons battling Romans? King Arthur being a Roman Knight?
Pretty much. Carlisle was a 'British' city state - St Patrick's dad was a town councillor there. IIRC, the Welsh call England LLogyr -the Lost Lands. And Patern Pesrut - Paternus of the Red Cloak, ie a Roman officer's garb, is in one of the Welsh kings' genealogies.
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?
Don't ask me, chum. I just know the Scots were parked in Ireland when the Romans were marching up and down on this side of the water. They moved over during the Dark Ages.
IIRC, a hereditary storyteller for the Irish kings ended up in the Outer Hebrides, his descendants still able to tell the stories to a folklorist not that long ago.
And you need to add the assorted Scandinavians and Angles to the mix. All blended together now.
Flitted over undercover of Dark Ages. Canny.
Isn’t DNA testing throwing many long held historical arguments under the bus? Will DNA provide conclusive answers and surprises
The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scots) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa).
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
That's an original take. What is interesting is how little of this dependence on history there is in Scottish indepednence circles in general, certainly in political discourse. Just one very telling example: suring the statue vandalising craze, someone vandalised the Bruce statue at Bannockburn field. Here, it caused a raised eyebrow and a shake of the head at the money the NTS would have to waste on getting a stone and a metal conservator out to clean it up. By contrast, in England, when someone vandalised some icon such as Mr Churchill ...
And one point - having a settled border and (in Scotland) a separate code of laws from before, as well as since, Union does actually count for a lot in practical terms,if you are arguing on what territory should be independent. .
Once again, I sacrificed clarity because I was already beyond the limit of what most people can tolerate in post length. My intention was not to say that there aren't good arguments for Brexit, Welsh, or Scottish independence, but just to say that the "going back to X" narrative is crap and should be dismissed as such. We should distrust those who want to go back. But we should reserve the sternest kickings for those who want to go back to a fiction.
I don't disagree at all. Inquire, and perhaps commemorate. But never celebrate.
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
I think it's a lot less than £30m as the 5% are only charged on winnings, which furthermore are offset against losses when you have multiple bets on a market.
If someone puts £1 on Trump now, with somebody laying £15 against, that's £16 matched going into the grand total, but probably only £1 being won in the end (by the layer), for a £0.05 commission.
Public service announcement: if you are paying 5% at Betfair, you can opt for 2% commission at the cost of giving up some concessions most serious punters will not miss anyway.
Check Betfair > My Account > My Betfair Account > Promotions & Rewards > My Betfair Rewards. This will show what plan you are on, and allow you to change.
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 obsession with Neil Oliver is telling. Doesn't fit the stereotype, I guess. And stereotypes seem to be important to those invested in identity politics.
Obsession? I think I've only previously mentioned him twice this year, posting his wanky spitfire tweet and a response to you obsessing about him being victimised in the National. Imo Mr Oliver very much fits a stereotype. Do agree with him that Orkney was Britain's ancient capital? If so I might have to stick you into the same stereotypical basket of..well, let's not say deplorables...
Not you specifically, UD, but he seems to provoke an outpouring of bile from Cybernats, doesn't he? I don't know anything about the Orkney issue TBH so can't comment. Whatever it was seems to have touched a nerve though.
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
That's an original take. What is interesting is how little of this dependence on history there is in Scottish indepednence circles in general, certainly in political discourse. Just one very telling example: suring the statue vandalising craze, someone vandalised the Bruce statue at Bannockburn field. Here, it caused a raised eyebrow and a shake of the head at the money the NTS would have to waste on getting a stone and a metal conservator out to clean it up. By contrast, in England, when someone vandalised some icon such as Mr Churchill ...
And one point - having a settled border and (in Scotland) a separate code of laws from before, as well as since, Union does actually count for a lot in practical terms,if you are arguing on what territory should be independent. .
Once again, I sacrificed clarity because I was already beyond the limit of what most people can tolerate in post length. My intention was not to say that there aren't good arguments for Brexit, Welsh, or Scottish independence, but just to say that the "going back to X" narrative is crap and should be dismissed as such. We should distrust those who want to go back. But we should reserve the sternest kickings for those who want to go back to a fiction.
I don't disagree at all. Inquire, and perhaps commemorate. But never celebrate.
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
Most people will be on 2% commission, and the big players less than that (or more but let's ignore premium charge here) and commission is only paid on net winnings rather than per bet, and most of the activity will be trading in and out rather than building positions.
So while you are right that Betfair makes money from keeping the market open, it will be nowhere near that much.
Everyone on the Trump side of the bet will be on 2% commission or less.
Betfair really don't want to close the market early, they're earning 5%+ on all bets so far which is at least £30 million. If Trump somehow pulls off an unlikely coup then they could be £600 million in the red.
Most people will be on 2% commission, and the big players less than that (or more but let's ignore premium charge here) and commission is only paid on net winnings rather than per bet, and most of the activity will be trading in and out rather than building positions.
So while you are right that Betfair makes money from keeping the market open, it will be nowhere near that much.
Everyone on the Trump side of the bet will be on 2% commission or less.
Surely everyone on the Trump side of the bet will be on 0% commission?
If a new Indy vote was held within the course of this parliament then I’d be shocked if Yes don’t win . If Labour win the next election and a vote is held then it would be much closer with a good chance Scotland stays . This is the problem for the SNP.
Bozo after trashing the Union is too spineless to allow a vote so will instead leave others to clear his mess up .
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
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.
But they've settled 44 of them before certs. Perhaps it would have been better to have settled each state on cert and the overall winner at the point when 270 or more certs had been done. Slower but consistent and clear and logical.
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
What sort of things, pray?
Travelling to and from the EU. Health insurance and driving licences are the main gripe
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.
But they've settled 44 of them before certs. Perhaps it would have been better to have settled each state on cert and the overall winner at the point when 270 or more certs had been done. Slower but consistent and clear and logical.
Haven't punters also settled those 44 too?
If there's only six where people are still betting on both sides then it makes sense to keep them open. Don't blame Betfair, blame the people betting on Trump - or better, take their money and say "thank you".
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
What sort of things, pray?
Travelling to and from the EU. Health insurance and driving licences are the main gripe
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.
So Biden stamping forcibly 24/7 on the Trump narrative would deter Trumpers from embracing it?
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
What sort of things, pray?
Travelling to and from the EU. Health insurance and driving licences are the main gripe
Whatever's wrong with paying for health insurance? If you travel to America you do it, why not the EU?
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.
Anyway, I have to go. My face won't shave itself.
I assure you, no naughtiness is intended. My question was not about how long the UK has existed in its current form (1921 from memory?) but about how long it has existed as a nation state. The question was prompted by your saying that Wales has never existed as an independent nation state, which is wholly true. However, something akin to Wales existed in a more-or-less independent form several hundred years ago. In fact, have you ever wondered where the word "Wales" comes from? It was an old English word, the plural of wealh, meaning "foreigner". Slightly ironic given that the Saxons were the more recent arrivals, but indicative of the separateness of the Saxons and the Welsh. (Aside: Cornwall comprises Corn=horn + wall=wealh = the foreigners of the horn-shaped penninsula) Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state. The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point: there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like. Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
So when Saxons were battling Welsh, they were Saxons battling Romans? King Arthur being a Roman Knight?
In some early tellings of King Arthur, he went and conquered Rome after sorting out the naughty Saxons and Franks and Danes, and everyone else this side of the Urals. Fought a fair few people who never even existed, too. Remarkable fellow. A ginger Alexander the Great perhaps
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
What sort of things, pray?
Travelling to and from the EU. Health insurance and driving licences are the main gripe
But we only wanted to get rid of the bits we didn't like! Typical European underhand tactics.
I don't know who David Paton is, but he doesn't seem to have grasped the fact that the last few days of the cases by specimen date graph are based on incomplete data. If he had, then he'd see that there is not yet any indication that the cases in Glasgow are going down!
Well he does say almost exactly that at the start at the first tweet, so I reckon he has grasped it.
If a new Indy vote was held within the course of this parliament then I’d be shocked if Yes don’t win . If Labour win the next election and a vote is held then it would be much closer with a good chance Scotland stays . This is the problem for the SNP.
Bozo after trashing the Union is too spineless to allow a vote so will instead leave others to clear his mess up .
Labour's best route to power, apart from becoming the centre left party that doesn't have a place for Jezza, Burgon and the Laura Pidcock tendency (Please vote for us instead you vile imperialist Tory voters because you are scum and vermin and we need your vote), is to win together with the SNP on a moderate left ticket, promising vaguely to renegotiate Brexit and certainly to have IndyRef2; then after winning the election in coalition join EEA/EFTA and hold and win for the UK the second referendum.
Not easy but there are no easy options for Labour. Or anyone else.
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
What sort of things, pray?
My friend's Brexit supporting parents have been comedy gold over this.
Every few weeks we get emails saying but we go on holiday four times a year to Europe, we should be prioritised over everybody else.
It can be boiled down to 'UK citizens should have free movement in the EU but not EU in citizens in the UK.'
The sad thing is they still back Brexit, they think it will all blow over by mid January and the EU will be begging us for a deal.
"When Labour won the 1997 general election, Powell told his wife, Pamela Wilson, "They have voted to break up the United Kingdom." "
So Johnson is probably right I suppose
So Enoch was right again?
Well, if Blair's devolution is to blame for Scottish Independence, I guess you could say that. I don't have any opinion on it, I just remember reading he said it
Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can. It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
If you look at prior states you can go to lots of places. A perfectly sensible dream would be to reinstate a nation called Northumbria, stretching from Hull to Edinburgh, separating the Highland Scots who as Picts and so on are a different lot altogether. This would dissolve the artificial boundaries of Hadrian's wall and, north of that, the current Scottish border.
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.
But they've settled 44 of them before certs. Perhaps it would have been better to have settled each state on cert and the overall winner at the point when 270 or more certs had been done. Slower but consistent and clear and logical.
Haven't punters also settled those 44 too?
If there's only six where people are still betting on both sides then it makes sense to keep them open. Don't blame Betfair, blame the people betting on Trump - or better, take their money and say "thank you".
Don't quite get you. Punters don't settle they only place bets. Settlement is a Betfair activated event.
He is stupid to say it , but I do agree with him. Tam Dalyell was right all along.
People say that because devolution has not killed Scot Nattery it has failed. But what about the counterfactual of devolution NOT being granted to Scotland. Surely it's likely that if the demand for greater autonomy had been ignored the disaffection of Scots within the UK would have grown more rapidly than it has done. Perhaps devolution has been a "success" in that it has prolonged the Union for a few years. And those few years might have become decades were it not for the thing that has actually destroyed the Union. Which is not of course Scottish devolution. It's Brexit.
There was no real sign in the late 1990s that in the absence of devolution the SNP were poised for a serious electoral breakthrough.
Was this drivel actually published in a newspaper? And he was paid for it!
Scene - interior, London flat. The phone rings. CM: "Boris, hi, Charles here. Still waiting for your column, it was due by 8 this morning?" BJ: "Charlie hi waffwarwerra hi, what's that old chap?" CM: "The copy for this week's column, it's late. Heavy night last night, Boris?" BJ: "Yes, Charlie [sniffing sound]" CM: "You have written it, Boris, haven't you?" BJ: "Oh yes yes [sniffing again]. Tried to send it last night, bloody modem playing up I expect. I'll have it with you by 12. Bye" ... BJ: "Petronella! Get us an egg roll will you? I've got a shitting headache and a column to write. Right. Scotland. Hmmm. We'll start with 'Och aye' and see how it goes from there..."
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
What sort of things, pray?
Travelling to and from the EU. Health insurance and driving licences are the main gripe
Whatever's wrong with paying for health insurance? If you travel to America you do it, why not the EU?
Not that big of a deal for me.
Oh good, because with every new Brexit development the question on everybody's bloody lips - nationwide, not just here - is "how is @Philip_Thompson going to feel about this?" And you come back and say that it's Not that big of a deal for me, or you are not afraid of it, and we all breathe a sigh of relief. To many of us, though, the additional cost and administration where there was none before is a medium sized deal which adds up with a lot of other medium sized deals to amount to a very big fucking deal.
Could you please reassure us that if we end up queueing for rationed food come January, that will be not that big of a deal for you? Thanks.
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.
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
What sort of things, pray?
Travelling to and from the EU. Health insurance and driving licences are the main gripe
Whatever's wrong with paying for health insurance? If you travel to America you do it, why not the EU?
Not that big of a deal for me.
Oh good, because with every new Brexit development the question on everybody's bloody lips - nationwide, not just here - is "how is @Philip_Thompson going to feel about this?" And you come back and say that it's Not that big of a deal for me, or you are not afraid of it, and we all breathe a sigh of relief. To many of us, though, the additional cost and administration where there was none before is a medium sized deal which adds up with a lot of other medium sized deals to amount to a very big fucking deal.
Could you please reassure us that if we end up queueing for rationed food come January, that will be not that big of a deal for you? Thanks.
What makes you think that food will be available to queue for?
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 obsession with Neil Oliver is telling. Doesn't fit the stereotype, I guess. And stereotypes seem to be important to those invested in identity politics.
Obsession? I think I've only previously mentioned him twice this year, posting his wanky spitfire tweet and a response to you obsessing about him being victimised in the National. Imo Mr Oliver very much fits a stereotype. Do agree with him that Orkney was Britain's ancient capital? If so I might have to stick you into the same stereotypical basket of..well, let's not say deplorables...
Not you specifically, UD, but he seems to provoke an outpouring of bile from Cybernats, doesn't he? I don't know anything about the Orkney issue TBH so can't comment. Whatever it was seems to have touched a nerve though.
God, that 'touched a nerve' guff is so tedious.
'KT Hopkins seems to have touched a nerve with her machine gunning migrants tweet' 'Glen Hoddle seems to have touched a nerve with his disabled folk being punished for sins in a former life remark' etc
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.
Full marks to any Polish immigrant who succeeds in basing a political career on telling us that foreigners shouldn't be telling us what to do.
Nice to see German immigrant Gisela Stuart and Polish immigrant Daniel Kawczynski putting aside historical differences in a common cause though. And then we get onto the Peruvians...
Such things are routinely done at local level, so I don't see the issue. That a Westminster politician blundered his way in doesn't suggest local areas dont have such authority.
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.
Is there actually a need for a "normal" naval base at Faslane? Either now or post-Indy?
My guess (as Grand Admiral of Grand Coulee & the Palouse) is that the answer is no. Leastways not enough need to suport 500+ direct employment.
Though judging my US naval bases there could be generations of jobs (albeit on a lesser scale) in enviromental cleanup.
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.
Fiscal transfer is absolute bollox , made up garbage. England borrows money and pretends it is Scotland's debt. A nutter can work that one out. @Casino_Royale
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.
You have to love the nutters that come out with that kind of garbage after 12 years of victories.
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?
Scottish nationalism is essentially defined by their hatred of the English, and justified by fake historically inaccurate grievances. It is a very backward and negative creed.
What a cretin , back under your rock creature. @Nigel_Foremain
Comments
Thanks to the unprecedented domestic production of PPE, for items such gowns and FFP3 facemasks, 70 per cent of the expected demand for PPE will be met by UK manufacturers from December. Businesses have been supporting the national effort by creating hundreds of new jobs and reducing reliance on overseas companies. Before the pandemic, just 1 per cent of PPE was produced in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huge-increase-in-uk-personal-protective-equipment-production
I don't have a source for 50-fold increase in PPE, its something I read in a news article but not sure where.
Keyboard warrior hypocrite.
The rate isn't declining fast enough with Christmas fast approaching. The idea is that by going into Tier 4 now they'll be able to lift the restrictions before Christmas and Chanukah etc rather than remaining in Tier 3 indefinitely.
The alternative is the Tier 3 remains into the New Year through the Festive period.
IIRC, a hereditary storyteller for the Irish kings ended up in the Outer Hebrides, his descendants still able to tell the stories to a folklorist not that long ago.
And you need to add the assorted Scandinavians and Angles to the mix. All blended together now.
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1328723074112512006?s=20
But Powell did not predict we would leave the EU that he despised, and that such an event would signal the break up of the UK.
When supporters claim to arrive at Enoch's predictions, they do so through the confusion of smoke, mirrors and bullshit.
Etymology lesson aside, what we're talking about is the concept of a nation state. Other forms of state are available from good retailers, and one of the product variations you can get is called the empire. Empires are quite distinct from nation states, so whilst a country like the UK is the centre of an empire of meaningful proportions (here, I would exclude small islands territories like the Falklands for the purpose of defining an empire) it is not a nation state.
The large south-Asian and African territories of the British (hmmm, united Kingomish?) Empire disappeared from that empire in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. At that point, I think it's reasonable to start the clock.
You can count from then til now, or exclude the 1993-2020 period of EU membership, as you see fit. Either way, you have an answer of between 25 and 55 years.
Not that this is important, except in one particular sense, and this, if you like, is my whole point:
there is no long period of nation-state-ness for the UK that can be reclaimed, in the same way that there isn't any nation-state-ness that Wales could reclaim. I see a lot of ahistorical mythmaking in Brexit circles that makes me worry that there is a widespread and profound misunderstanding of what the past was actually like.
Those who wanted Brexit, or who want Welsh or Scottish independence should not be allowed the luxury of portraying their wishes as representing a return to a prior, settled state. We have almost no history of nation states in these islands, and the clearest example we have, that of Ireland, is one that we seem most eager to ignore as hard as we can.
It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
The current system - even if there is no clamour for a different settlement - infantilises political debate and retards economic growth.
https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1328656002573590529?s=21
Isn’t DNA testing throwing many long held historical arguments under the bus? Will DNA provide conclusive answers and surprises
It was pretty clear.
The boss of Moderna, the company behind one of the Covid vaccines whose initial trial results have recently been announced, has warned that long negotiations over purchasing the new vaccine will slow down deliveries to European countries.
Stephane Bancel told AFP news agency that other nations who have signed deals will get priority. The UK has already signed a deal with Moderna to supply five million doses from next spring.
---------------
The European Commission wants to reach a deal with Moderna for the supply of millions of doses of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate for a price below $25 (18.9 pounds) per dose, an EU official involved in the talks said.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-eu-seeks-moderna-covid-161756153.html
I think in this case Moderna definitely got all the cards. I notice Prof Peston hasn't corrected the record.
And one point - having a settled border and (in Scotland) a separate code of laws from before, as well as since, Union does actually count for a lot in practical terms,if you are arguing on what territory should be independent. .
So the brake need to be applied now. To be honest I was expecting more areas to go into Tier 4 today.
Imo Mr Oliver very much fits a stereotype. Do agree with him that Orkney was Britain's ancient capital? If so I might have to stick you into the same stereotypical basket of..well, let's not say deplorables...
I am now expecting it to be Electoral Votes casting day to get it settled.
So that I can get by 93 Pence profit on the market.
So while you are right that Betfair makes money from keeping the market open, it will be nowhere near that much.
"Due to technical difficulties, today's data will be released after 6pm."
If someone puts £1 on Trump now, with somebody laying £15 against, that's £16 matched going into the grand total, but probably only £1 being won in the end (by the layer), for a £0.05 commission.
1066 And All That
If we start from the position the Tories are pushing: devolution is a disaster. Okay, what is your policy that does something about it?
Check Betfair > My Account > My Betfair Account > Promotions & Rewards > My Betfair Rewards.
This will show what plan you are on, and allow you to change.
Having a good laugh on Facebook at some people realising things that will stop on 31st Dec. "They can't do that!" When I point out that the whole point of Brexit was removing the EU from the life of British citizens I get "That's not what is supposed to happen!"
I would like to believe that people are not that obtuse, but the evidence is against me.
Are we going to have anyone left after the internationals?
No win, no fee!
Bozo after trashing the Union is too spineless to allow a vote so will instead leave others to clear his mess up .
For Attlee, it was the NHS. For Lloyd-George, the foundations of the welfare state. For Churchill, victory in the Second World War.
For Johnson, the reopened Suggitts Lane level crossing will forever stand as his lasting legacy to a grateful nation.
If there's only six where people are still betting on both sides then it makes sense to keep them open. Don't blame Betfair, blame the people betting on Trump - or better, take their money and say "thank you".
I have a bridge to sell you.
Not that big of a deal for me.
I'll leave it at that
Hendo's left the England squad.
I suspect our under six team, the one that beat Everton in the FA Cup in January, will be deployed a few times again.
Not easy but there are no easy options for Labour. Or anyone else.
Every few weeks we get emails saying but we go on holiday four times a year to Europe, we should be prioritised over everybody else.
It can be boiled down to 'UK citizens should have free movement in the EU but not EU in citizens in the UK.'
The sad thing is they still back Brexit, they think it will all blow over by mid January and the EU will be begging us for a deal.
It's a shame; we could learn a lot.
If you look at prior states you can go to lots of places. A perfectly sensible dream would be to reinstate a nation called Northumbria, stretching from Hull to Edinburgh, separating the Highland Scots who as Picts and so on are a different lot altogether. This would dissolve the artificial boundaries of Hadrian's wall and, north of that, the current Scottish border.
has been stopped dead in its tracks.
NEW THREAD
CM: "Boris, hi, Charles here. Still waiting for your column, it was due by 8 this morning?"
BJ: "Charlie hi waffwarwerra hi, what's that old chap?"
CM: "The copy for this week's column, it's late. Heavy night last night, Boris?"
BJ: "Yes, Charlie [sniffing sound]"
CM: "You have written it, Boris, haven't you?"
BJ: "Oh yes yes [sniffing again]. Tried to send it last night, bloody modem playing up I expect. I'll have it with you by 12. Bye"
...
BJ: "Petronella! Get us an egg roll will you? I've got a shitting headache and a column to write.
Right. Scotland. Hmmm. We'll start with 'Och aye' and see how it goes from there..."
Could you please reassure us that if we end up queueing for rationed food come January, that will be not that big of a deal for you? Thanks.
'KT Hopkins seems to have touched a nerve with her machine gunning migrants tweet'
'Glen Hoddle seems to have touched a nerve with his disabled folk being punished for sins in a former life remark'
etc
My guess (as Grand Admiral of Grand Coulee & the Palouse) is that the answer is no. Leastways not enough need to suport 500+ direct employment.
Though judging my US naval bases there could be generations of jobs (albeit on a lesser scale) in enviromental cleanup.