Categories
Rebuilding a Nation: Unionists need to engage in a battle of both hearts and minds – politicalbettin
Rebuilding a Nation: Unionists need to engage in a battle of both hearts and minds – politicalbetting.com
TV used to be so much simpler. When I was growing up, there were only three, then four channels (though Channel 4 didn’t start up until mid-afternoon). If you wanted On Demand, you had to use a Video Recorder. Viewing was entirely through the box (and TVs were boxy) and the only thing resembling an internet was Ceefax and Oracle. They were also almost entirely passively consumed: no ‘e-mail, text or tweet us’ then; radio shows might have phone-ins where they’d go to Steve on Line 1 but the rest of the time, they broadcast and we watched or listened. Still, for all the changes since, I don’t honestly remember it being all that bad.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
SLAB have learnt their lesson, one presumes.
Who's going to bell the cat this time round? Gordon Brown is yesterday's person - and has made four or five promises of federalism too many. Neil Oliver is just a TV figure talking about old battles, to many people. SKS is too sensible. Michael Gove?
If that is the case, why should Mr J lift a finger to do anything for the moral unity of the UK?
Our countries have simply diverged too much for the Union to be viable, or to have a point.
It does make for grim hegemony of the Tories in England, at least for a generation, but you cannot stop an idea whose time had come.
Scots voted No in 2014 because of the economic risks and would vote No again mainly because of the economic risks, particularly given there would be tariffs on all Scottish exports to England once the UK leaves the SM and CU in January even with a basic trade deal and 70% of Scottish exports go to England (even the UK only sends less than 50% of exports to the EU).
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-most-scots-would-reject-independence-after-considering-issues-2976093
Quebecois similarly voted No by 51% ie the narrowest margin in 1995 to independence from Canada mainly due to the economic risks coupled with getting devomax which is likely the long term solution for Scotland.
However in the meantime 2014 was a once in a generation vote and that must be respected
I am irresistibly reminded of General Melchett's finest line: 'If all else fails, a pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.'
And just a reminder that his predictions (if this is one) are seldom wrong.
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.04
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.05
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.09
Biden ECV 300-329 1.09
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.09
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02
AZ Dem 1.06
GA Dem 1.07
MI Dem 1.06
NV Dem 1.06
PA Dem 1.06
WI Dem 1.07
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.08
So in the highly unlikely even that if the Republicans do manage to get sufficient state legislatures to flip their EVs for Trump to win, then io get to Acting President Pelosi, it would require the Congress to successfully go through the rejection process for every single state and DC and so no electoral votes at all are counted. If no EVs are counted then no contingent elections can take place in the House for the President and Senate for VP. Clearly that’s not going to happen, but if it did, I don’t think there’s any way to re-start the counting process, so Nancy Pelosi would be Acting President for a full term.
Very slightly more likely would be that sufficient cycles of objection and debate of specific state results undertaken so slowly that the counting process drags on until Jan 20th in which case Pelosi would be Acting President only until the count is complete.
The only scenario I can realistically see where the rejection of electoral votes from any state actually occurs would be if the Republicans do manage to get state legislatures to try to flip their state's results. Leaving aside all the procedural and constitutional barriers to tha actually happeningt, then it would still require both houses to reject such returns. That would favour the Republicans slightly, but only if the state executives in question have signed off on the legislature’s attempted override.
Of the close Biden win states, only Arizona and Georgia have Republican governors that might conceivably go along with such a coup by their legislature, That would only flip at most 27 EVs to Trump out of Biden’s projected winning margin of 37. The governors of Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Democrats, which means even if the legislatures of those states sent divergent returns of EVs for Trump, the two houses would have to agree to accept them over those for Biden returned by the governors.
The point is they are not part of the totally corrupt so called big parties. Just wait till May we’ll be back. To be honest there is no point in labour at the moment or any other party apart from UKIP lite.
What is the UK for? Right now seems to be all about things like Brexit and the Hostile Environment, an angry country looking inwards.
I think it's easy to forget how different things look from Scotland. I was at school there for several years. All the
national newspapers have Scottish editions, and are very different, all the TV channels are Scottish, and different, the premier football league is different, and even the Scottish pound feels different - although fully part of British Sterling. London felt a very very long way away. The whole national conversation can be different.
And that was in 1995. Before we get to how modern technology atomises us still further.
Also, a certain kind of upper middle-class English leader grates with many Scots, be that Thatcher, Cameron or, in particular, Boris. Scotland has its upper-classes too, but they are more rural, distant and quaint - England can give them a sense that a posh accent and posh education give you a right to rule. It's why they struggled with them but Brown and May didn't so much.
That said, there were and are similarities - our island culture, our weather, the BBC, the NHS, the armed forces, history, chippies, our shared pub culture, and even shared scepticism to the Euro. And most people have some relations or family on the other side of the border. The trick is to turn political nationalism into a strong and safe cultural one, with Scots feeling truly respected in the Union.
We need direct Scottish participation and representation in the UK Government with major cabinet portfolios, more shared experiences, and I'd be willing to explore policy solutions for this, world-class competence, and more communication of the benefits of the Union and how it listens to and works for Scotland - enhancing its strength and profile on the world stage.
For example, I am Welsh. Wales, as far as I am concerned, is a country, and a nation, just not a nation state (which is one definition of the word 'country').
Meanwhile the EU has many trappings of a nation state, and arguably more power than the Federal Government of the USA in key areas, yet is not a country, a nation, a nation state or anything else similar.
Interesting examples abound with the US Civil War. Robert E. Lee, for example, was loyal to the Union (to the extent he was offered field command of the Union army at the start of the war) as was one of the cabinet ministers of Cleveland I mentioned on here, Augustus Garland. Nevertheless, when secession actually happened, they felt their 'countries' (Virginia and Arkansas) had left so they supported the Confederacy - indeed, without Lee it's unlikely the Confederacy would have lasted more than two years.
So - what is a country, and what is a traitor?
HYFUD's idea of tanks is more sensible. Could only have been out of touch morons like Gove and Johnson that could ever imagine that would make us want to be unionists. Crackpots.
Did you see that touristy video put out by the Scotland Office [the one in London, run by the UK Gmt] repeating Scottish Gmt agency stuff as if it was Scotland Office output?
If you must spew irreleavnt xenophobic bile, at least keep up to date.
I see how waters can be patriotic but the fish aren’t. They are only in the waters because of the current agreement. If there is something fishy in the state of Denmark, it’s because that is where they spawn.
Fish don’t recognise national borders. greement prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water?
Coordinated action helped to prevent over fishing and improve fish stocks?
One example. Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK comes from EU and Brexit doesn’t change that, because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to?
Even if Federal EU never existed, even if we are out, we have no choice but to be in a fish agreement?
The idea that fish that swim into our waters is our own patriotic resource is just potty. You have to subtract agreements with others to prevent over fishing, subtract respect for fish life cycle of spawn one place big in another. We are currently have a deal with EU that stops by law others fishing the fish swimming towards us, without that logically we will have less fish swimming towards our nets.
Explain where I am wrong, because I think this is brexiteers being at their most straw for brains.
(I will admit, during the US statues controversy, to have enjoyed a little fun at the expense of some of the more self-righteous arseholes involved. When they protested Washington's statues should remain while Lee's came down, on the grounds that Washington wasn't a traitor, I pointed out he was...just a more successful one.)
As someone or other once said, the nation is a feeling, the state an idea; a successful country must combine the two. By accident or design, we Nats seem to making the running on this so far.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/937529/COVID-19_Winter_Plan.pdf
I haven't read so many self-pitying, self justifying, ridiculous and transparent lies since the last time I read David Irving's account of his failed libel case.
This government is absolutely scum. Like Trump with slightly better hair.
Oh, it's only HYUFD, stand down lads.
Many English people don't see any particular point in being British apart from a vague sense of cultural identity. That is, as David says, weaker than it used to be with the loss of common televisual experiences and, I'd argue, a cultural spread into a thousand different preoccupations with few common features. Many younger people just get on with their lives and are now rather indifferent to national identity.
As a thought experiment, if you're English, consider how you'd feel if the border shifted and you were now Scottish or Welsh. How much would you care? You might be mildly pleased or mildly regretful, but would it be a really big deal?
I love the UK but I also think our head of state shouldn't be limited to a certain family.
If you love democracy then you want a head of state to be democratically elected, I believe take back control from our unelected rulers is something beloved by so many Brits.
I mean if the Royals were really popular they'd easily every regular election for head of state right?
I mean if we don't allow hereditary Prime Ministers then we shouldn't allow a hereditary head of state either.
If Boris offered an independence referendum with this electorate:
Those eligible to vote in a Westminster general election in Scotland, ie no under 18s and no non-British, plus Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Would you accept ?
What the Unionists are going to struggle with is that a lot of the Scottish professional class have defected from the union over time. That’s for a few reasons, but in my case is due to the abrasive crew of Brexiteering tits who run the government who just don’t care what Scots, Irish or Welsh think of their policy making. If you want a unified nation you need to consider those viewpoints rather than steamroll over them to please mad old Colonels in Dorking. The slash and burn policy annoys the people who like the old aesthetic of prudence and care.
Most of us didn’t like Cameron because he represented yet another Thatcher child, but at least he had the nouse to couch his unionism in the old Presbytery language. In that respect I think Better Together had a stronger cultural case than was expected because it appealed to middle-class Scots’ ingrained “steady as she goes” attitude. The problem is that the current crew have spectacularly blown that up. Why stay in the union if its behaviour is that of a rich boy with no concept of value? If we’re going to be less well off, at least we can do it without a party we despise and leaders we’d happily see sent to Timbuktu.
In that respect (if Johnson does care about the Union and not the aforementioned Dorking Colonels) he needs to get a Brexit deal. It doesn’t matter if it seems bad to the nutters, it needs to happen because it’s something a responsible leader would do. If that doesn’t happen the SNP smash the elections next year because Scots don’t buy into the “Australia deal” malarkey that is being peddled.
Electing the head of state would make it a funny sort of monarchy, but I'd welcome a referendum on the matter.
1. Criterion of birth is Blood and Soil thinking.
2. It is unevenly applied - those incomers living in Scotland are allowed to vote.
3. No existing listing - there is no official Scots nationality ergo no objective documentary criterion ([edit] I do know about FRance and expat French, but when there is an elecvtion in France the French take their passports along).
tl;dr Donald Trump is an elected head of state. tl;dr 2 imagine Brexit was a person, and ran for head of state with Dominic Cummings as its campaign manager.
https://twitter.com/LeeHurstComic/status/1332383617885024256
The interesting point here is that the Anglo-Scottish border has been utterly stable since the 1500s - almost as loing as, or perhapos longer than, any other national border in the world (one village football field aside).
From 1707 to 1991 they existed for the Anglo-Scottish union - Catholicism, Jacobitism, France, Germany, Soviets.
In the unlikely event of another EU ref being held in the next 4 years, hands up those who think it would be fine to radically change the form from the 2016 one?
We've never done that for the Monarchy.
Remember the monarch has an awful lot of power, I worry about the day when we have an absolute idiot (or worse) as monarch.
Lest we forget but for his libido we would have had a Nazi sympathiser as monarch in the run up and during WWII.
I mean could you imagine Edward VIII appointing Churchill as PM in May 1940, he would have picked the appeaser Lord Halifax.
I'd also add - exclusion of the 16 and 17 yos who are far more affected than the old farts like me and Mr Cameron of wooden caravan fame.
I think Nats are against this and in favour of letting children and non-Brits vote not because of any real principle, but because they want to fix the franchise in their favour.
And if Mr Cameron was happy with the 2014 franchise, which was actually that for residents in Scotland and defined long before indyref 1, why change?
HYUFD: “Hold my beer”
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1332604252523474958
Cameron's mistake was to let the SNP fix the franchise for the 2014 referendum, Johnson would be wise to not repeat the error.
14 odd polls have shown yes in the lead. Any ref campaign would likely see things shift around. And if - god forbid - it was 52% yes against 48% no, I'm not convinced that's particularly stable grounds for a united country (as we've seen here)
If I was a SNAT I would accept such a referendum - you would still have a good, if lower, chance of winning.
And even if you lost it wouldn't stop the independence movement would it and would likely give the SNP another boost.
I suspect however she is in big trouble if she's not able to argue the story was true. It's not like that weirdo from Bath where Dugdale's comments were ruled wrong, but a reasonable interpretation of the comments expressed as an honest opinion. This is criminality she was alleging.
It wouldn't be that hard to implement. There are Council Tax and electoral roll records, I assume, which would be used to determine eligibility to vote for Scots outside Scotland.
As I've said elsewhere, Cameron made an error, but that's no reason to make it again. He probably thought that No was such a shoo-in there was no point arguing about the franchise.
I remember pre 2014 Unionists breathlessly reporting that school debate after school debate was ending in favour of the Union. I believe the phrase 'bad tactical error by Salmond letting the kids vote' may even have been used.
And as with say, Brexit, the SNP will offer vague promises that somehow all will be well when Scotland leaves the UK, because they will govern themselves and there's no way a bunch of politicians who fucked up schools, universities, hospitals, the police and managing a criminal investigation into their own former leader could possibly screw up the economy and foreign affairs.
Meanwhile, those campaigning on facts face the awkward truth that the electorate don't care about the facts because they believe them to be wrong. That incidentally would hold good even if a divorce deal was agreed in advance of the vote.
So I would be surprised if a referendum held in the next two years did not lead to a 'Yes' vote. Whether that state of affairs is permanent is a different question, and so many moving parts are involved anyone predicting it either way for definite would be better off spinning a coin.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1332626435794722816?s=19
5% each for Greens, LD and BXP is not something that I would expect in a real GE.
I wonder what will happen when we are no longer in BINO?
What about brands? There was some fuss when Cadbury's was sold to Kraft but things have either failed (Rover) or been sold off (Jaguar). We live in a consumer society but going to buy a laptop or mobile phone you won't find much British ingenuity present - or certainly not in terms of brand/ownership. Banks and financial services might pay the bills but they don't inspire pride.
I just can't see what other defence is open to her.
Edit - re funding, I don't think that counts for a defence, only for the plaintiff, although I could be wrong. It shouldn't do, but then law and sense have never been easy bedfellows.
You are just grasping for excuses to exclude those with a real stake in Scotland's future from voting and I think we know why.