Wales is a very different beast to Scotland. It's been part of the Kingdom of England (And successors) for the previous ~ 1000 years, and if you look back before that was never really completely unified - Deheubarth/Gwynedd being antecedents to annexation by England. It's got a few of it's own laws now, but they're a very recent (1990s !) construct and there's no natural legal heritage there in the same way Scotland has it's own fully formed legal system. Also economically I'd wager South Wales is more linked to Bristol and North Wales to the Northwest than each other. Politically it acts as a slightly more leftwing version of England and the nationalist party is confined to west Wales. I severely doubt it'll happen in my lifetime (I'm 39) whereas Scotland looks more likely than not.
Exactly and Wales voted Leave just like England, it can have no complaints.
I oppose Scottish independence but at least Sturgeon can say she has an alternative to the UK, the EU, a Wales outside both the UK and the EU would not be viable
Blimey, you've come out swinging this morning.
The desire for Welsh Independence will go stratospheric after Scotland leave. And as you know yourself, economic arguments count for nothing, when the alternative is self-determination.
I am in, my family are in. We are converts!
When historians analyse Boris Johnson's legacy as Prime Minister in fifty, a hundred, two hundred years time, he will be referred to as the man who facilitated the demise of the United Kingdom.
No it won't.
First Scotland will not be leaving anyway, certainly under this Tory government it will not be allowed.
Second in terms of economic arguments less than half of UK exports went to the EU in 2016, most Welsh exports go to England now.
The only real support for Welsh independence comes from leftwing Welsh Remainers and Wales voted Leave
The times they are a changin'.
The Brexit Tory "boyos" I work with may not have liked the EU, but for different reasons than did Rees Mogg.
The Welsh Brexiteers despise the English more than they did the EU.
Changing the subject to a more pressing matter: I think you said yesterday that you believe 15 AZ vaccines have been produced but not yet packaged (IIRC).
That would be fantastic news if true. Do you have a source for that info? Thanks
Well-placed sources said almost a million doses will be “on the shelf” in time for the roll out next week and a further two million made available by the middle of January.
On Wednesday Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, had said 530,000 doses had been cleared for release but another 407,000 will now be ready for use by this Monday.
[snip]
A further three million Oxford doses have been stored in vials for immediate use once given safety clearance with a further 15 million waiting for the “fill and finish” stage - where they are put into glass vials. That process takes just days.
I'm not sure from that if the 15 million are including the 3 million + 1 million or as well as the 4 million. If they're as well as the 4 million then that means 19 million are already produced so far in total.
Thanks. This all sounds like very good news.
We'll have to agree to differ on the 'nationalism' front.
At least we avoided fulfilling Godwin's Law.
(Oh bugger, that probably counts... Godwin's Law: to mention it it to fulfil it.)
PS why are there only two l's in fulfil?
Before we agree to differ can I ask you a final question: do you see a distinction between nationalism and imperialism?
I would say that imperialism dominated the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century leading to many wars over the centuries and ultimately the first and second world wars. Even Japan was Imperialist in WWII.
I would argue that the latter half of the 20th century, from Gandhi leading India to freedom onwards, has been dominated increasingly by peaceful nationalism that has brought about the end of the age of imperialism.
I would rather have peaceful nationalism than jingoistic imperialism - can you agree with that?
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
No, I don't think so. If people freely choose self determination, I wish them well. The days we suppress independence movements by force of arms should be long since consigned to the history books.
Theses nationalist independence movements are not benign, they divide people and foster conflict. We have nothing to gain from borders being erected.
What is not benign is the colonial despots thinking it is still the empire days trying to not allow democratic votes in SOVEREIGN countries.
I have no issue with indyref2 probably late 2022 but of course it needs to proceed through the HOC and HOL so consensus amongst the 650 mps is a pre requisite and that remains to be seen
Of course you could declare UDI but any unofficial plebiscite would need to satisfy UK and international law and maybe the Scots need to challenge that through the courts first
There will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory government, 2014 was once in a generation and Sturgeon would have as much success with a UDI declaration as the Catalans did when they declared UDI in defiance of Madrid
The great hulking Leviathan of Scottish independence is rolling, and without brakes. Johnson can hold off the inevitable until post 2024, but it will happen. Labour need to wise up to this. As part of their preparation for future government, they need to consider how this plays out.
If Johnson does hold off on a referendum until he is out of office, it won't matter. History will view him as the architect of an Independent Scotland, an independent Wales and a United Ireland.
It may be seen as an accidental, but nonetheless positive legacy.
I expect if Starmer did get in in 2024 in return for SNP confidence and supply he may well agree indyref2 but offer Scotland devomax with regional assemblies for England and renegotiate the Brexit Deal to make it more closely aligned to the EU than Boris' is.
There will be no independent Scotland, Wales and UI under Boris so obviously he will not be the architects of them and in Wales Boris delivered a Leave win exactly as he did in England and Boris also won the highest voteshare for the Tories in Wales of any Tory leader for almost 100 years so obviously that would not be his legacy as far as Wales goes anyway
He would be the architects of them in any case. The truth hurts my friend.
Wales is a very different beast to Scotland. It's been part of the Kingdom of England (And successors) for the previous ~ 1000 years, and if you look back before that was never really completely unified - Deheubarth/Gwynedd being antecedents to annexation by England. It's got a few of it's own laws now, but they're a very recent (1990s !) construct and there's no natural legal heritage there in the same way Scotland has it's own fully formed legal system. Also economically I'd wager South Wales is more linked to Bristol and North Wales to the Northwest than each other. Politically it acts as a slightly more leftwing version of England and the nationalist party is confined to west Wales. I severely doubt it'll happen in my lifetime (I'm 39) whereas Scotland looks more likely than not.
Also, it is sometines more convenient to travel between parts of Wales via England.
Maybe the Federation of England and Wales should quietly leave the Union.
I will be interested to see Starmer's ideas on devolution, although I suspect it will be more about placating the Scots than creating a better system of governance for England and the UK as a whole.
If only they had the cojones to go it alone rather than sponging off Scotland. Starmers just another Labour windbag, he will never give up any real powers to Scotland as it is the only colony they have left.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
No ‘thumping’ SNP majority today?
If the SNP cannot even repeat the overall majority they got at Holyrood in 2011 before the 2014 indyref obviously they could not even claim a mandate for indyref2 anyway
And if they can then you recognise that they can claim a mandate? 🤔
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
Which is why we should have peaceful nationalism with ballots not bullets.
Which is why we should recognise democratic mandates and not try to settle this with force.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Technical correction - you can't "avoid" something that was never there - but I take the point you're making. I imagine most Scottish voters subscribe to the view that a Thin Deal is better than No Deal, and no doubt many of them were as fooled by the No Deal hyping as people down here were.
How are you feeling now about Georgia btw? Is there a degree of concern creeping in that the Dems could do it and leave you £25 in the hole?
I think the GOP will hold at least 1 of the Georgia seats, probably Purdue's and thus narrowly hold the Senate but either way it will not break the bank
Cockney Covid isn't quite as bad as initial estimate, but still bad...
Researchers at Imperial College London have now confirmed it increases the R number - the number of people that one infected person will pass on a virus to - by about 0.4 to 0.7.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
No ‘thumping’ SNP majority today?
If the SNP cannot even repeat the overall majority they got at Holyrood in 2011 before the 2014 indyref obviously they could not even claim a mandate for indyref2 anyway
And if they can then you recognise that they can claim a mandate? 🤔
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
No ‘thumping’ SNP majority today?
Tory surge Klaxon instead. Widow Twankey from the Lords and Buttons as a List MSP candidate ( too cowardly to try and get elected ) will surely make it happen.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
No, I don't think so. If people freely choose self determination, I wish them well. The days we suppress independence movements by force of arms should be long since consigned to the history books.
Theses nationalist independence movements are not benign, they divide people and foster conflict. We have nothing to gain from borders being erected.
What is not benign is the colonial despots thinking it is still the empire days trying to not allow democratic votes in SOVEREIGN countries.
I have no issue with indyref2 probably late 2022 but of course it needs to proceed through the HOC and HOL so consensus amongst the 650 mps is a pre requisite and that remains to be seen
Of course you could declare UDI but any unofficial plebiscite would need to satisfy UK and international law and maybe the Scots need to challenge that through the courts first
There will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory government, 2014 was once in a generation and Sturgeon would have as much success with a UDI declaration as the Catalans did when they declared UDI in defiance of Madrid
The great hulking Leviathan of Scottish independence is rolling, and without brakes. Johnson can hold off the inevitable until post 2024, but it will happen. Labour need to wise up to this. As part of their preparation for future government, they need to consider how this plays out.
If Johnson does hold off on a referendum until he is out of office, it won't matter. History will view him as the architect of an Independent Scotland, an independent Wales and a United Ireland.
It may be seen as an accidental, but nonetheless positive legacy.
There will be no independent Scotland,
The problem with you is that you get goaded, or are simply programmed, into making assertions which simply don't stand up to the test of time. You repeatedly did this during the Presidential elections and were wrong on many of the fundamentals as well as the details. I had hoped that might have introduced a degree of humility and contrition into your posts. After all, everyone makes mistakes.
However, you have returned full of bombast and bravura.
You don't know that there won't be an independent Scotland. You simply don't know that. So don't be an arse by posting it to provoke reaction.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
Changing the subject to a more pressing matter: I think you said yesterday that you believe 15 AZ vaccines have been produced but not yet packaged (IIRC).
That would be fantastic news if true. Do you have a source for that info? Thanks
Well-placed sources said almost a million doses will be “on the shelf” in time for the roll out next week and a further two million made available by the middle of January.
On Wednesday Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, had said 530,000 doses had been cleared for release but another 407,000 will now be ready for use by this Monday.
[snip]
A further three million Oxford doses have been stored in vials for immediate use once given safety clearance with a further 15 million waiting for the “fill and finish” stage - where they are put into glass vials. That process takes just days.
I'm not sure from that if the 15 million are including the 3 million + 1 million or as well as the 4 million. If they're as well as the 4 million then that means 19 million are already produced so far in total.
Thanks. This all sounds like very good news.
We'll have to agree to differ on the 'nationalism' front.
At least we avoided fulfilling Godwin's Law.
(Oh bugger, that probably counts... Godwin's Law: to mention it it to fulfil it.)
PS why are there only two l's in fulfil?
Before we agree to differ can I ask you a final question: do you see a distinction between nationalism and imperialism?
I would say that imperialism dominated the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century leading to many wars over the centuries and ultimately the first and second world wars. Even Japan was Imperialist in WWII.
I would argue that the latter half of the 20th century, from Gandhi leading India to freedom onwards, has been dominated increasingly by peaceful nationalism that has brought about the end of the age of imperialism.
I would rather have peaceful nationalism than jingoistic imperialism - can you agree with that?
To answer you briefly Philip, as I have to go, I believe imperialism is the natural (almost inevitable) extension of nationalism.
Sorry not to have time to debate it further, I recognise there are two sides to the argument and your views are sincerely held. I just think you are wrong on this.
We are going to be seeing this all year but particularly in the first 6 months. Many things that did not make the cut in the agreement will be resolved with co-operation and interdependence being established once again. Services are obviously the most important. Will the ECB be pressured into accepting that contracts booked in London are regulated by the FCA under the auspices of the BoE even when they relate to Euros and are for EU businesses? I think that they will.
My principal aspiration for 2021 (other than stopping the SNP from getting the absolute majority that both Philip and I have forecast) is that by the end of it we will have a much better relationship with Europe with many of the benefits of membership of the EU but none of the politics. Which is what I think about 80% of us always wanted.
I expect that by the end of this year enough of these bilateral deals will have been done that for the average Brit having left the EU will be barely any different than from before. It's just a shame that it has taken 4 and half years of arguing to get to the point where pragmatism has taken over.
Wishful thinking, reality is likely to be a lot worse for sure. You can guarantee these clowns have negotiated a crap deal.
"Many on the remainer left accept the EU has its faults, but they fear that Brexit will be the start of something worse: slash and burn deregulation that will make Britain a nastier place to live.
This, though, assumes that Britain will have rightwing governments in perpetuity. It used to be the left who welcomed change and the right that wanted things to remain the same. The inability to envisage what a progressive government could do with Brexit represents a political role reversal and a colossal loss of nerve."
Much of it rings true to me.
Based on experience, it seems more realistic to assume that Britain will have right-wing governments in perpetuity than to assume the alternative.
18yrs of Tory, 13 yrs of Labour and now 10+ yrs of Tory. There is a reasonable chance of a change in 2024.
What this shows to me is that the advantages of being in office have grown excessive under our system and it is more difficult to kick out an incompetent government than it should be.
Only a civil war, the loss of perceived economic competence and the arrival of an outstanding LOTO allowed a change of government in 1997. Only the complete collapse of any competence economically, the arrival of a plausible LOTO and the selection of Gordon Brown as Blair's replacement caused Labour to lose office in 2010 (just). What is likely to cause such disruption as to cause the Tories to lose in 2024? There are a few possibilities but at least 1 of the normal criteria seem to me not to be met. I think that the probability at the moment is another, if reduced, Tory majority..
We do need to think about this. As we have seen in Scotland and as was being debated on here yesterday things do not go well when the boundaries between the state and a single political party become excessively blurred.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
There’s a reason why American nationalists describe themselves as “patriots” rather than “nationalists”. Nationalism, like it or not, has very negative connotations. It screams superiority complex.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
Which is why we should have peaceful nationalism with ballots not bullets.
Which is why we should recognise democratic mandates and not try to settle this with force.
Agreed?
I highly doubt we would end up like the Balkans in the 1990s with a brutal civil war and needing UN and Nato intervention even if Boris did refuse indyref2 after an SNP Holyrood majority.
At most we would end up with a Madrid and Catalonia 2017 style standoff
Changing the subject to a more pressing matter: I think you said yesterday that you believe 15 AZ vaccines have been produced but not yet packaged (IIRC).
That would be fantastic news if true. Do you have a source for that info? Thanks
Well-placed sources said almost a million doses will be “on the shelf” in time for the roll out next week and a further two million made available by the middle of January.
On Wednesday Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, had said 530,000 doses had been cleared for release but another 407,000 will now be ready for use by this Monday.
[snip]
A further three million Oxford doses have been stored in vials for immediate use once given safety clearance with a further 15 million waiting for the “fill and finish” stage - where they are put into glass vials. That process takes just days.
I'm not sure from that if the 15 million are including the 3 million + 1 million or as well as the 4 million. If they're as well as the 4 million then that means 19 million are already produced so far in total.
Thanks. This all sounds like very good news.
We'll have to agree to differ on the 'nationalism' front.
At least we avoided fulfilling Godwin's Law.
(Oh bugger, that probably counts... Godwin's Law: to mention it it to fulfil it.)
PS why are there only two l's in fulfil?
Before we agree to differ can I ask you a final question: do you see a distinction between nationalism and imperialism?
I would say that imperialism dominated the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century leading to many wars over the centuries and ultimately the first and second world wars. Even Japan was Imperialist in WWII.
I would argue that the latter half of the 20th century, from Gandhi leading India to freedom onwards, has been dominated increasingly by peaceful nationalism that has brought about the end of the age of imperialism.
I would rather have peaceful nationalism than jingoistic imperialism - can you agree with that?
To answer you briefly Philip, as I have to go, I believe imperialism is the natural (almost inevitable) extension of nationalism.
Sorry not to have time to debate it further, I recognise there are two sides to the argument and your views are sincerely held. I just think you are wrong on this.
Another time maybe...
Fair enough.
Final thought on the topic. For me Nationalism is the desire to rule yourselves, Imperialism is the desire to rule others.
One is good, one is bad.
HYUFD wanting to deny a second independence referendum even if the Scots vote for it is imperialistic.
"Many on the remainer left accept the EU has its faults, but they fear that Brexit will be the start of something worse: slash and burn deregulation that will make Britain a nastier place to live.
This, though, assumes that Britain will have rightwing governments in perpetuity. It used to be the left who welcomed change and the right that wanted things to remain the same. The inability to envisage what a progressive government could do with Brexit represents a political role reversal and a colossal loss of nerve."
Much of it rings true to me.
Based on experience, it seems more realistic to assume that Britain will have right-wing governments in perpetuity than to assume the alternative.
18yrs of Tory, 13 yrs of Labour and now 10+ yrs of Tory. There is a reasonable chance of a change in 2024.
Indeed, only 1 party has won a general election after 10 years or more in power since WW2, the Tories in 1992 so the odds historically should favour Labour in 2024 but it very much likely depends on Scotland staying in the UK as without Scottish MPs backing Starmer to be PM the Tories would still likely have a majority in England and Wales, especially with No Deal avoided
Have you not worked out yet that Labour do not have Scottish MP's and will not after next election either given we will be independent by then anyway.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Sturgeon and Blackford badly misjudged Scottish opinion by insisting that SNP MPs vote to block the deal.
YouGov polling on 30th December: "Do you think MPs should vote to accept the deal or reject the trade deal?" Response from Scots only: 47% accept, 17% block, 36% don't know.
With her "leave the light on" for Scotland comment, she's making a similar misjudgment. Support for rejoining the EU is not going to be anything like as strong as she thinks it will be, even though that's now the pretext behind the case for a second vote on separation from the UK.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
There’s a reason why American nationalists describe themselves as “patriots” rather than “nationalists”. Nationalism, like it or not, has very negative connotations. It screams superiority complex.
No it is because Americans don't understand the English language or use it properly and turn sensible words into curse words. See what they have done to the word liberal.
I would call myself both a liberal and a nationalist. I would not call myself an American style patriot nor an American style liberal.
What a dumb ass question. Given we would own almost 10% of the 100M doses , what makes you think we would be short. I never fail to be amazed with the pomposity and stupidity of unionists
If you were independent in the EU do you think you would have joined England's scheme, the EU's scheme or had your own scheme?
Who knows, I would hazard a guess that they would have gone with EU given being a member.
"Many on the remainer left accept the EU has its faults, but they fear that Brexit will be the start of something worse: slash and burn deregulation that will make Britain a nastier place to live.
This, though, assumes that Britain will have rightwing governments in perpetuity. It used to be the left who welcomed change and the right that wanted things to remain the same. The inability to envisage what a progressive government could do with Brexit represents a political role reversal and a colossal loss of nerve."
Much of it rings true to me.
Based on experience, it seems more realistic to assume that Britain will have right-wing governments in perpetuity than to assume the alternative.
18yrs of Tory, 13 yrs of Labour and now 10+ yrs of Tory. There is a reasonable chance of a change in 2024.
What this shows to me is that the advantages of being in office have grown excessive under our system and it is more difficult to kick out an incompetent government than it should be.
Only a civil war, the loss of perceived economic competence and the arrival of an outstanding LOTO allowed a change of government in 1997. Only the complete collapse of any competence economically, the arrival of a plausible LOTO and the selection of Gordon Brown as Blair's replacement caused Labour to lose office in 2010 (just). What is likely to cause such disruption as to cause the Tories to lose in 2024? There are a few possibilities but at least 1 of the normal criteria seem to me not to be met. I think that the probability at the moment is another, if reduced, Tory majority..
We do need to think about this. As we have seen in Scotland and as was being debated on here yesterday things do not go well when the boundaries between the state and a single political party become excessively blurred.
On most recent polls there will be a hung Parliament in 2024 and Starmer would become PM but only with SNP confidence and supply.
Labour would have won in 1997 even without Blair but more narrowly, the Tories even under David Davis would likely have ended up largest party in 2010 but the LDs might have backed Labour rather than the Tories then
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
There’s a reason why American nationalists describe themselves as “patriots” rather than “nationalists”. Nationalism, like it or not, has very negative connotations. It screams superiority complex.
No it is because Americans don't understand the English language or use it properly and turn sensible words into curse words. See what they have done to the word liberal.
I would call myself both a liberal and a nationalist. I would not call myself an American style patriot nor an American style liberal.
Even in Britain “nationalist” has negative connotations. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Changing the subject to a more pressing matter: I think you said yesterday that you believe 15 AZ vaccines have been produced but not yet packaged (IIRC).
That would be fantastic news if true. Do you have a source for that info? Thanks
Well-placed sources said almost a million doses will be “on the shelf” in time for the roll out next week and a further two million made available by the middle of January.
On Wednesday Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, had said 530,000 doses had been cleared for release but another 407,000 will now be ready for use by this Monday.
[snip]
A further three million Oxford doses have been stored in vials for immediate use once given safety clearance with a further 15 million waiting for the “fill and finish” stage - where they are put into glass vials. That process takes just days.
I'm not sure from that if the 15 million are including the 3 million + 1 million or as well as the 4 million. If they're as well as the 4 million then that means 19 million are already produced so far in total.
Thanks. This all sounds like very good news.
We'll have to agree to differ on the 'nationalism' front.
At least we avoided fulfilling Godwin's Law.
(Oh bugger, that probably counts... Godwin's Law: to mention it it to fulfil it.)
PS why are there only two l's in fulfil?
Before we agree to differ can I ask you a final question: do you see a distinction between nationalism and imperialism?
I would say that imperialism dominated the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century leading to many wars over the centuries and ultimately the first and second world wars. Even Japan was Imperialist in WWII.
I would argue that the latter half of the 20th century, from Gandhi leading India to freedom onwards, has been dominated increasingly by peaceful nationalism that has brought about the end of the age of imperialism.
I would rather have peaceful nationalism than jingoistic imperialism - can you agree with that?
To answer you briefly Philip, as I have to go, I believe imperialism is the natural (almost inevitable) extension of nationalism.
Sorry not to have time to debate it further, I recognise there are two sides to the argument and your views are sincerely held. I just think you are wrong on this.
Another time maybe...
Fair enough.
Final thought on the topic. For me Nationalism is the desire to rule yourselves, Imperialism is the desire to rule others.
One is good, one is bad.
HYUFD wanting to deny a second independence referendum even if the Scots vote for it is imperialistic.
No being imperialistic would be denying a second independence referendum, scrapping Holyrood and imposing direct rule on Scotland from London without even any Scottish MPs at Westminster
Cockney Covid isn't quite as bad as initial estimate, but still bad...
Researchers at Imperial College London have now confirmed it increases the R number - the number of people that one infected person will pass on a virus to - by about 0.4 to 0.7.
That is really bad. It is probably the difference between Tier 1 and tier 4. Nothing short of tier 4+ is going to stop its spread.
Changing the subject to a more pressing matter: I think you said yesterday that you believe 15 AZ vaccines have been produced but not yet packaged (IIRC).
That would be fantastic news if true. Do you have a source for that info? Thanks
Well-placed sources said almost a million doses will be “on the shelf” in time for the roll out next week and a further two million made available by the middle of January.
On Wednesday Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, had said 530,000 doses had been cleared for release but another 407,000 will now be ready for use by this Monday.
[snip]
A further three million Oxford doses have been stored in vials for immediate use once given safety clearance with a further 15 million waiting for the “fill and finish” stage - where they are put into glass vials. That process takes just days.
I'm not sure from that if the 15 million are including the 3 million + 1 million or as well as the 4 million. If they're as well as the 4 million then that means 19 million are already produced so far in total.
Thanks. This all sounds like very good news.
We'll have to agree to differ on the 'nationalism' front.
At least we avoided fulfilling Godwin's Law.
(Oh bugger, that probably counts... Godwin's Law: to mention it it to fulfil it.)
PS why are there only two l's in fulfil?
Before we agree to differ can I ask you a final question: do you see a distinction between nationalism and imperialism?
I would say that imperialism dominated the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century leading to many wars over the centuries and ultimately the first and second world wars. Even Japan was Imperialist in WWII.
I would argue that the latter half of the 20th century, from Gandhi leading India to freedom onwards, has been dominated increasingly by peaceful nationalism that has brought about the end of the age of imperialism.
I would rather have peaceful nationalism than jingoistic imperialism - can you agree with that?
To answer you briefly Philip, as I have to go, I believe imperialism is the natural (almost inevitable) extension of nationalism.
Sorry not to have time to debate it further, I recognise there are two sides to the argument and your views are sincerely held. I just think you are wrong on this.
Another time maybe...
Fair enough.
Final thought on the topic. For me Nationalism is the desire to rule yourselves, Imperialism is the desire to rule others.
One is good, one is bad.
HYUFD wanting to deny a second independence referendum even if the Scots vote for it is imperialistic.
No being imperialistic would be denying a second independence referendum, scrapping Holyrood and imposing direct rule on Scotland from London without even any Scottish MPs at Westminster
Good morning David, pedantry aside , almost all will be on holiday today so not exactly best time to judge the outcome. Time will tell and one can only hope it works well and Kent has been concreted for nothing and only impact is Tories makin fortunes out of selling the land and building the lorry parks.
Good morning David, pedantry aside , almost all will be on holiday today so not exactly best time to judge the outcome. Time will tell and one can only hope it works well and Kent has been concreted for nothing and only impact is Tories makin fortunes out of selling the land and building the lorry parks.
Absolutely Malcolm, I totally agree. And good morning to you too.
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
No, I don't think so. If people freely choose self determination, I wish them well. The days we suppress independence movements by force of arms should be long since consigned to the history books.
Theses nationalist independence movements are not benign, they divide people and foster conflict. We have nothing to gain from borders being erected.
What is not benign is the colonial despots thinking it is still the empire days trying to not allow democratic votes in SOVEREIGN countries.
I have no issue with indyref2 probably late 2022 but of course it needs to proceed through the HOC and HOL so consensus amongst the 650 mps is a pre requisite and that remains to be seen
Of course you could declare UDI but any unofficial plebiscite would need to satisfy UK and international law and maybe the Scots need to challenge that through the courts first
There will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory government, 2014 was once in a generation and Sturgeon would have as much success with a UDI declaration as the Catalans did when they declared UDI in defiance of Madrid
The great hulking Leviathan of Scottish independence is rolling, and without brakes. Johnson can hold off the inevitable until post 2024, but it will happen. Labour need to wise up to this. As part of their preparation for future government, they need to consider how this plays out.
If Johnson does hold off on a referendum until he is out of office, it won't matter. History will view him as the architect of an Independent Scotland, an independent Wales and a United Ireland.
It may be seen as an accidental, but nonetheless positive legacy.
There will be no independent Scotland,
The problem with you is that you get goaded, or are simply programmed, into making assertions which simply don't stand up to the test of time. You repeatedly did this during the Presidential elections and were wrong on many of the fundamentals as well as the details. I had hoped that might have introduced a degree of humility and contrition into your posts. After all, everyone makes mistakes.
However, you have returned full of bombast and bravura.
You don't know that there won't be an independent Scotland. You simply don't know that. So don't be an arse by posting it to provoke reaction.
My Presidential election predictions were not that far out, either a narrow Biden win or a narrow Trump win.
In the end it was a narrow Biden win but with Trump being the first losing candidate to win both Ohio and Florida since Nixon in 1960
We are going to be seeing this all year but particularly in the first 6 months. Many things that did not make the cut in the agreement will be resolved with co-operation and interdependence being established once again. Services are obviously the most important. Will the ECB be pressured into accepting that contracts booked in London are regulated by the FCA under the auspices of the BoE even when they relate to Euros and are for EU businesses? I think that they will.
My principal aspiration for 2021 (other than stopping the SNP from getting the absolute majority that both Philip and I have forecast) is that by the end of it we will have a much better relationship with Europe with many of the benefits of membership of the EU but none of the politics. Which is what I think about 80% of us always wanted.
We should aim for the better relationship. We are victims, I suppose, of our poor choices and have to make the best of our situation as we can. We certainly aren't rejoining the European Union any time soon. One upside is that we now have no cliff edges for the first time in five years - except for a Data Adequacy decision, which is definitely worth getting if we can.
A thoughtful article on this topic. The suggestion that Brexit is the UK reaching out to the wider world is completely false. (In fact I might support it if it were true):
And the article linked in this tweet. The deal maybe looks more like a truce than a stable arrangement. The EU does need to decide on how it wants to involve close non-member countries in its project. Obviously less of a problem for the UK than the fact the UK doesn't know what it wants to be.
Cockney Covid isn't quite as bad as initial estimate, but still bad...
Researchers at Imperial College London have now confirmed it increases the R number - the number of people that one infected person will pass on a virus to - by about 0.4 to 0.7.
That is really bad. It is probably the difference between Tier 1 and tier 4. Nothing short of tier 4+ is going to stop its spread.
I think we had guessed that already...just a matter of how long it takes the government to react...looks at watch...waits....waits...looks at watch again....
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
There’s a reason why American nationalists describe themselves as “patriots” rather than “nationalists”. Nationalism, like it or not, has very negative connotations. It screams superiority complex.
No it is because Americans don't understand the English language or use it properly and turn sensible words into curse words. See what they have done to the word liberal.
I would call myself both a liberal and a nationalist. I would not call myself an American style patriot nor an American style liberal.
Even in Britain “nationalist” has negative connotations. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Considering its associated with the IRA due to them trying to seek independence by bombs and bullets rather than ballots yes. But they're genuine nationalists, they're just not peaceful ones. I endorse peaceful nationalism via the ballot box not bombs or bullets.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Sturgeon and Blackford badly misjudged Scottish opinion by insisting that SNP MPs vote to block the deal.
YouGov polling on 30th December: "Do you think MPs should vote to accept the deal or reject the trade deal?" Response from Scots only: 47% accept, 17% block, 36% don't know.
With her "leave the light on" for Scotland comment, she's making a similar misjudgment. Support for rejoining the EU is not going to be anything like as strong as she thinks it will be, even though that's now the pretext behind the case for a second vote on separation from the UK.
Indeed, had there been No Deal I think a big SNP majority next year would have been very likely and the SNP would have got over 50% of the vote.
Now we have a Deal with the EU and the SNP have rejected it I think the SNP vote will fall back to its 45% hardcore and that may not be enough for an SNP majority, especially with Unionist tactical voting
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
"Many on the remainer left accept the EU has its faults, but they fear that Brexit will be the start of something worse: slash and burn deregulation that will make Britain a nastier place to live.
This, though, assumes that Britain will have rightwing governments in perpetuity. It used to be the left who welcomed change and the right that wanted things to remain the same. The inability to envisage what a progressive government could do with Brexit represents a political role reversal and a colossal loss of nerve."
Much of it rings true to me.
Based on experience, it seems more realistic to assume that Britain will have right-wing governments in perpetuity than to assume the alternative.
18yrs of Tory, 13 yrs of Labour and now 10+ yrs of Tory. There is a reasonable chance of a change in 2024.
What this shows to me is that the advantages of being in office have grown excessive under our system and it is more difficult to kick out an incompetent government than it should be.
Only a civil war, the loss of perceived economic competence and the arrival of an outstanding LOTO allowed a change of government in 1997. Only the complete collapse of any competence economically, the arrival of a plausible LOTO and the selection of Gordon Brown as Blair's replacement caused Labour to lose office in 2010 (just). What is likely to cause such disruption as to cause the Tories to lose in 2024? There are a few possibilities but at least 1 of the normal criteria seem to me not to be met. I think that the probability at the moment is another, if reduced, Tory majority..
We do need to think about this. As we have seen in Scotland and as was being debated on here yesterday things do not go well when the boundaries between the state and a single political party become excessively blurred.
On most recent polls there will be a hung Parliament in 2024 and Starmer would become PM but only with SNP confidence and supply.
Labour would have won in 1997 even without Blair but more narrowly, the Tories even under David Davis would likely have ended up largest party in 2010 but the LDs might have backed Labour rather than the Tories then
Labour would certainly have won under Smith, who is probably the closest to SKS, in 1997. But my point is that these decade plus periods of one party domination are not healthy to our democracy. We need to give some thought as to what can make the playing field a little more level.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
But imperialism is fueled by nationalism, specifically the belief of the imperialist power that they are better than those they colonize.
I'd put it as follows regarding Nationalism: It can be a good thing - a great thing even - if the cause is to achieve self-determination. All other forms are toxic.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
No ‘thumping’ SNP majority today?
Tory surge Klaxon instead. Widow Twankey from the Lords and Buttons as a List MSP candidate ( too cowardly to try and get elected ) will surely make it happen.
It’s weird that blusterers like HYUFD are perpetually issuing threats and waving their big (small) stick, yet they’re too feart to defend their marvellous Union in a peaceful, mutually agreed vote.
In my time I’ve seen progressive Unionism, muscular Unionism, angry Unionism, generous Unionism, bribing Unionism, confident Unionism and shy Unionism among others, but it’s the first time that gutless Unionism seems to be entirely the order of the day.
Waitabluddyminute, I thought Project Brexit had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with backward-looking imperial nostalgia?
IDS is a prat.
We should not be looking to dominate the world. What a bloody stupid thing to say.
There may have been some young ladies he was hoping to dominate aged 21, but didn't quite win the vote on that occasion.
Not to be salacious and lower the tone - especially so soon in a new year - but I can certainly imagine IDS as a dominator of the ladies. Sort of chap who always carves the roast and chooses the wine.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
No, it was Serbian Imperialism.
No it came about as Slovenia and Croatia and then Bosnia tried to leave Yugoslavia following their own nationalist movements and the Yugoslav then Serbian government and army then responded
Good morning David, pedantry aside , almost all will be on holiday today so not exactly best time to judge the outcome. Time will tell and one can only hope it works well and Kent has been concreted for nothing and only impact is Tories makin fortunes out of selling the land and building the lorry parks.
Absolutely Malcolm, I totally agree. And good morning to you too.
David did you see my post last week re the documents released to the. enquiry and what the Scottish Government legal team said to them , re pulling out if they did not do right thing. Assume it must have been something bad they could not lie to judge about
We are going to be seeing this all year but particularly in the first 6 months. Many things that did not make the cut in the agreement will be resolved with co-operation and interdependence being established once again. Services are obviously the most important. Will the ECB be pressured into accepting that contracts booked in London are regulated by the FCA under the auspices of the BoE even when they relate to Euros and are for EU businesses? I think that they will.
My principal aspiration for 2021 (other than stopping the SNP from getting the absolute majority that both Philip and I have forecast) is that by the end of it we will have a much better relationship with Europe with many of the benefits of membership of the EU but none of the politics. Which is what I think about 80% of us always wanted.
I expect that by the end of this year enough of these bilateral deals will have been done that for the average Brit having left the EU will be barely any different than from before. It's just a shame that it has taken 4 and half years of arguing to get to the point where pragmatism has taken over.
The political heat has gone out of the relationship, it makes being pragmatic much easier than before. Hopefully a sign of things to come and both parties now work to a mutually beneficial relationship.
The issues will start when we move to join CPTPP as it requires some areas of divergence in standards with the EU to align more with APAC and the US, it could result in some arbitration set tariffs with the EU. Though I'm sure the EU will want to avoid that as every tariff they push for reduces the overall value of the deal for the UK and as time passes the UK will become a lot better at dealing with an enlarged customs border and adapting supply chains for the new relationship that doesn't have an joint customs area.
Expect a lot of rehashes of the current arguments when that happens later on this year.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
But imperialism is fueled by nationalism, specifically the belief of the imperialist power that they are better than those they colonize.
I'd put it as follows regarding Nationalism: It can be a good thing - a great thing even - if the cause is to achieve self-determination. All other forms are toxic.
Nationalism doesn't involve a belief that you are superior. Some people add superiority for other reasons, eg racism, but that has nothing to do with nationalism as the ideology.
Look at the definition of nationalism in Wikipedia, what is unreasonable about this as an ideology?
Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people),[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][8][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).[2]
The idea of self-determination and popular sovereignty is a good thing not a bad thing. The only element I'd disagree with there is ethnicity and religion - as far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to come to this country and make it their home is welcome to this nation and a part of it.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
Utter rubbish.
What led to the Yugoslav wars was the idiotic creation of Yugoslavia in the first place - a fake country that could only be held together by a Dictator and the joint fear on the part of the US and Soviets of WW3 if it fell apart during the Cold War.
As soon as those two factors disappeared there was nothing that was going to hold together the religious and cultural factions that had been hating each other for a thousand years.
As we have seen in so many cases, false amalgamations of nations will eventually lead to conflict, either armed or social.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Sturgeon and Blackford badly misjudged Scottish opinion by insisting that SNP MPs vote to block the deal.
YouGov polling on 30th December: "Do you think MPs should vote to accept the deal or reject the trade deal?" Response from Scots only: 47% accept, 17% block, 36% don't know.
With her "leave the light on" for Scotland comment, she's making a similar misjudgment. Support for rejoining the EU is not going to be anything like as strong as she thinks it will be, even though that's now the pretext behind the case for a second vote on separation from the UK.
Sub samples, sub samples, get yer luvvly sub samples.
This guys nothing like a PB Scotch expert so he’s probably wrong.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
There’s a reason why American nationalists describe themselves as “patriots” rather than “nationalists”. Nationalism, like it or not, has very negative connotations. It screams superiority complex.
Yes, "patriot" is the word of choice for public consumption.
It does for "nationalist" what the lipstick does for the pig.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
No, it was Serbian Imperialism.
No it came about as Slovenia and Croatia and then Bosnia tried to leave Yugoslavia following their own nationalist movements and the Yugoslav then Serbian government and army then responded
OMG you are so far gone you respect the Serbian imperialism don't you? 🤦🏻♂️
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
No, I don't think so. If people freely choose self determination, I wish them well. The days we suppress independence movements by force of arms should be long since consigned to the history books.
Theses nationalist independence movements are not benign, they divide people and foster conflict. We have nothing to gain from borders being erected.
What is not benign is the colonial despots thinking it is still the empire days trying to not allow democratic votes in SOVEREIGN countries.
I have no issue with indyref2 probably late 2022 but of course it needs to proceed through the HOC and HOL so consensus amongst the 650 mps is a pre requisite and that remains to be seen
Of course you could declare UDI but any unofficial plebiscite would need to satisfy UK and international law and maybe the Scots need to challenge that through the courts first
There will be no indyref2 allowed by this Tory government, 2014 was once in a generation and Sturgeon would have as much success with a UDI declaration as the Catalans did when they declared UDI in defiance of Madrid
The great hulking Leviathan of Scottish independence is rolling, and without brakes. Johnson can hold off the inevitable until post 2024, but it will happen. Labour need to wise up to this. As part of their preparation for future government, they need to consider how this plays out.
If Johnson does hold off on a referendum until he is out of office, it won't matter. History will view him as the architect of an Independent Scotland, an independent Wales and a United Ireland.
It may be seen as an accidental, but nonetheless positive legacy.
There will be no independent Scotland,
The problem with you is that you get goaded, or are simply programmed, into making assertions which simply don't stand up to the test of time. You repeatedly did this during the Presidential elections and were wrong on many of the fundamentals as well as the details. I had hoped that might have introduced a degree of humility and contrition into your posts. After all, everyone makes mistakes.
However, you have returned full of bombast and bravura.
You don't know that there won't be an independent Scotland. You simply don't know that. So don't be an arse by posting it to provoke reaction.
My Presidential election predictions were not that far out, either a narrow Biden win or a narrow Trump win.
In the end it was a narrow Biden win but with Trump being the first losing candidate to win both Ohio and Florida since Nixon in 1960
Picking both horses in a two horse race is not exactly difficult to have winner.
And yet still the lady behind the campaign isn't happy....apparently cos we brexit'ed, the UK has made it unlikely the EU will change their own stupid law...all our governments fault apparently.
"Many on the remainer left accept the EU has its faults, but they fear that Brexit will be the start of something worse: slash and burn deregulation that will make Britain a nastier place to live.
This, though, assumes that Britain will have rightwing governments in perpetuity. It used to be the left who welcomed change and the right that wanted things to remain the same. The inability to envisage what a progressive government could do with Brexit represents a political role reversal and a colossal loss of nerve."
Much of it rings true to me.
Based on experience, it seems more realistic to assume that Britain will have right-wing governments in perpetuity than to assume the alternative.
18yrs of Tory, 13 yrs of Labour and now 10+ yrs of Tory. There is a reasonable chance of a change in 2024.
What this shows to me is that the advantages of being in office have grown excessive under our system and it is more difficult to kick out an incompetent government than it should be.
Only a civil war, the loss of perceived economic competence and the arrival of an outstanding LOTO allowed a change of government in 1997. Only the complete collapse of any competence economically, the arrival of a plausible LOTO and the selection of Gordon Brown as Blair's replacement caused Labour to lose office in 2010 (just). What is likely to cause such disruption as to cause the Tories to lose in 2024? There are a few possibilities but at least 1 of the normal criteria seem to me not to be met. I think that the probability at the moment is another, if reduced, Tory majority..
We do need to think about this. As we have seen in Scotland and as was being debated on here yesterday things do not go well when the boundaries between the state and a single political party become excessively blurred.
On most recent polls there will be a hung Parliament in 2024 and Starmer would become PM but only with SNP confidence and supply.
Labour would have won in 1997 even without Blair but more narrowly, the Tories even under David Davis would likely have ended up largest party in 2010 but the LDs might have backed Labour rather than the Tories then
Labour would certainly have won under Smith, who is probably the closest to SKS, in 1997. But my point is that these decade plus periods of one party domination are not healthy to our democracy. We need to give some thought as to what can make the playing field a little more level.
We have not exactly had a decade of Tory domination, the Tories failed to even win a majority in 2010 and 2017 and from 2010 to 2015 we had a Tory and LD coalition government.
Labour only lasted in power for 6 years from 1945 to 1951 under Attlee and for 6 years from 1964 to 1970 and 5 years from 1974 to 1979 under Wilson and Wilson and Callaghan, Heath's Tories only lasted in power for 4 years from 1970 to 1974.
Starmer does not strike me as a charismatic and dominant PM figure in the shape of a Blair or a Thatcher, if he does become PM in 2024 he will be more of a Wilson or Heath figure and I expect a strong Tory opposition which would almost certainly still have a majority in England could have a chance to return to power at the next election after that
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
There’s a reason why American nationalists describe themselves as “patriots” rather than “nationalists”. Nationalism, like it or not, has very negative connotations. It screams superiority complex.
No it is because Americans don't understand the English language or use it properly and turn sensible words into curse words. See what they have done to the word liberal.
I would call myself both a liberal and a nationalist. I would not call myself an American style patriot nor an American style liberal.
Even in Britain “nationalist” has negative connotations. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Doesn't in Scotland unless you are a lying two faced unionist nutjob.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Sturgeon and Blackford badly misjudged Scottish opinion by insisting that SNP MPs vote to block the deal.
YouGov polling on 30th December: "Do you think MPs should vote to accept the deal or reject the trade deal?" Response from Scots only: 47% accept, 17% block, 36% don't know.
With her "leave the light on" for Scotland comment, she's making a similar misjudgment. Support for rejoining the EU is not going to be anything like as strong as she thinks it will be, even though that's now the pretext behind the case for a second vote on separation from the UK.
Another expert gives us their opinion from afar, PMSL. Perhaps you should stick to something you actually have a clue about.
Ah yes. This was the quote I sought to recreate from memory in my earlier post. The exact one is even more deluded and bombastic!
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Snap!
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
I know! It's not all Leavers, I get that, and there is a lot to be said for "moving on", I get that too, but there is also a lot to be said for trying in a spirit of dispassionate intellectual inquiry to understand the drivers behind such a cosmic political decision as Brexit.
The political heat has gone out of the relationship, it makes being pragmatic much easier than before. Hopefully a sign of things to come and both parties now work to a mutually beneficial relationship.
The issues will start when we move to join CPTPP as it requires some areas of divergence in standards with the EU to align more with APAC and the US, it could result in some arbitration set tariffs with the EU. Though I'm sure the EU will want to avoid that as every tariff they push for reduces the overall value of the deal for the UK and as time passes the UK will become a lot better at dealing with an enlarged customs border and adapting supply chains for the new relationship that doesn't have an joint customs area.
Expect a lot of rehashes of the current arguments when that happens later on this year.
Oh I've no doubt the arguing will continue, but I've also no doubt that now that we have really left the EU it should be a lot easier to do these smaller and sectorial agreements. Now if we hadn't spent three and half years arguing about leaving in itself, and only a year negotiating the new deal we would be in a better position. Switch those ratios around and we'd be well on our way to where we want to be.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Sturgeon and Blackford badly misjudged Scottish opinion by insisting that SNP MPs vote to block the deal.
YouGov polling on 30th December: "Do you think MPs should vote to accept the deal or reject the trade deal?" Response from Scots only: 47% accept, 17% block, 36% don't know.
With her "leave the light on" for Scotland comment, she's making a similar misjudgment. Support for rejoining the EU is not going to be anything like as strong as she thinks it will be, even though that's now the pretext behind the case for a second vote on separation from the UK.
Sub samples, sub samples, get yer luvvly sub samples.
This guys nothing like a PB Scotch expert so he’s probably wrong.
Not even a majority of Scots think the Brexit Deal is a bad deal according to Yougov so am not sure what Curtice is on there, the LDs also voted against the Deal as did many SLab MSPs so the SNP do not even have the anti Deal vote to themselves anyway
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
I agree wrt Scotland but the NI anomaly is really just that. If they could get along a single united Irelandis not a catastrophe at all.
We’re in serious danger of ending up with an English state.
Certainly possible and it would make little sense but at least I'm clear that England alone would be a very powerful and viable force, economically, politically, culturally and socially. A Federated outcome of some sort would be preferable certainly.
The danger of England alone is that it will be a country born out of rejection and so angry with itself and with others.
I have rejected England. I cannot stand what we have become, can see no way to turn around the rank stupidity and arrogant exceptionalism, so I'm leaving.
England has turned into an insular we are better fuck you country which would make sense if we were still the industrial powerhouse of the 60s or had a financial sector we hadn't just signed away with a Brexit deal that doesn't protect it. So having become spiteful and nasty towards the countries more prosperous and less cunty than we are, we will slide to being even less prosperous and even nastier.
Or, more accurately, you will. Norniron will be fine, cast off the UK by a government so thick that it didn't realise it was doing it. Gibraltar, cast off to become British in Name Only. And Scotland, who at the very least will want their own slice of freedom and at the most will walk.
People in England want to be free of the forrin? Lets be honest, that includes Paddy and Jock just as much as it does the Hun and the Frogs. Time to accept that and let England do whatever it thinks a country of its stature is entitled to.
TBH I think you need to look in a different mirror.
Brexit is not to do with expelling the "forrin". It is to do with not being controlled by an unaccountable, demonstrably irreformable EU.
Having a headspace dominated by 'EU' (not "Europe") is far more parochial than looking more widely.
Let's see what happens.
The thing that is really odd is that RP voted for Brexit from memory - but now he's as arch a Europhile extremist as Scott or williamglenn.
Having examined some of RP's posting, I think we might describe his views as volatile.
(My recollection like you is he had a fit about the Remain campaign, and voted Leave).
My EFTA / EEA position hasn't changed throughout. We were inevitably going to pushed to the extremities of the two-speed Europe because we were not part of the Euro / Schengen / Army etc. So better to step off of our own volition than be flung off. Given the choice of what we now have or continued EU membership I'd stay in the EU - but that wasn't the only option.
That we are shouting about free trade having just left the free trade area is laughable. You can trade freely with the EU without being a member. We have chosen not to.
Really don't understand your last paragraph. We have chosen to trade freely with the EU without being a member. Whether that proves to be a good idea or not only time will tell.
Actually we haven't and RP is absolutely right on this. We have chosen to trade freely in certain specific areas. Had we chosen the EFTA/EEA route it would have been far more comprehensive. The only difference between RP and myself is I would still have chosen this over staying in. In the end trade, as he mentions, is only one small part of the EU project and the rest of it negates value we get from membership.
But what significant differences are there between our zero tariff/zero quota but outside of the customs area deal . . . with the EFTA/EEA Single Market but outside of the customs area deal?
The main issues RP complains about: customs declarations, rules of origin etc - they apply to the EEA too don't they? What would be significantly different between the EFTA and our deal now?
We have resolved this for Northern Ireland and your favourite PM Mrs May resolved it for the entire UK. The UK had no choice but to remain in a customs union and the EEA because of the GFA. That it would create a unique arrangement for the UK of combining EEA and CU membership outside the EU isn't an objection as we have just created a different unique arrangement.
I have to laugh at the stupidity of it. We have ended up with this omnishambles deal where we have the right to sign trade deals with elsewhere and change our standards, but only at the cost of tariffs and quotas. We have the right to have babies even though we can't have babies. Or, we could have agreed with the EU the exact same principle that isn't practical without imposing trade barriers and sinking our financial services sector.
Actually this is wrong. The UK could not stay inside the Customs Union under any circumstances. The reasons for this had nothing to do with the UK and everything to do with the EU. Membership of the Customs Union is explicitly reserved for EU members. To change this would have required rewriting of the basic treaties that underpin the EU and they did not want to do that because every time they do member countries want other changes made. It was made explicit at the start of the whole process from the EU that leaving the EU meant leaving the Customs Union even if we stayed in the Single Market.
And yet still the lady behind the campaign isn't happy....apparently cos we brexit'ed, the UK has made it unlikely the EU will change their own stupid law...all our governments fault apparently.
The EU changed the VAT rules to allow national governments discretion on what gets zero rating, after UK urging, so Sunak's implied claim that Tampon Tax could be removed only by leaving the EU, is false. TBF Sunak doesn't outright lie about Brexit's supposed benefits, as Johnson and the rest of the cabinet do.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Technical correction - you can't "avoid" something that was never there - but I take the point you're making. I imagine most Scottish voters subscribe to the view that a Thin Deal is better than No Deal, and no doubt many of them were as fooled by the No Deal hyping as people down here were.
How are you feeling now about Georgia btw? Is there a degree of concern creeping in that the Dems could do it and leave you £25 in the hole?
I think the GOP will hold at least 1 of the Georgia seats, probably Purdue's and thus narrowly hold the Senate but either way it will not break the bank
It won't? That's good to hear. But this "double or quits" stuff can creep up on you. This one plus a few dozen more and you'll be tossing me the keys to your nouveau Essex mansion plus People Carrier.
Ah yes. This was the quote I sought to recreate from memory in my earlier post. The exact one is even more deluded and bombastic!
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Snap!
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
I know! It's not all Leavers, I get that, and there is a lot to be said for "moving on", I get that too, but there is also a lot to be said for trying in a spirit of dispassionate intellectual inquiry to understand the drivers behind such a cosmic political decision as Brexit.
Imperial nostalgia was a pull for parts of the Brexit elite.
Xenophobia was a factor for some brexit voters. However taking Duncan Smith's silly remarks and generalising about leavers is mistaken.
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
I agree wrt Scotland but the NI anomaly is really just that. If they could get along a single united Irelandis not a catastrophe at all.
We’re in serious danger of ending up with an English state.
Certainly possible and it would make little sense but at least I'm clear that England alone would be a very powerful and viable force, economically, politically, culturally and socially. A Federated outcome of some sort would be preferable certainly.
The danger of England alone is that it will be a country born out of rejection and so angry with itself and with others.
I have rejected England. I cannot stand what we have become, can see no way to turn around the rank stupidity and arrogant exceptionalism, so I'm leaving.
England has turned into an insular we are better fuck you country which would make sense if we were still the industrial powerhouse of the 60s or had a financial sector we hadn't just signed away with a Brexit deal that doesn't protect it. So having become spiteful and nasty towards the countries more prosperous and less cunty than we are, we will slide to being even less prosperous and even nastier.
Or, more accurately, you will. Norniron will be fine, cast off the UK by a government so thick that it didn't realise it was doing it. Gibraltar, cast off to become British in Name Only. And Scotland, who at the very least will want their own slice of freedom and at the most will walk.
People in England want to be free of the forrin? Lets be honest, that includes Paddy and Jock just as much as it does the Hun and the Frogs. Time to accept that and let England do whatever it thinks a country of its stature is entitled to.
TBH I think you need to look in a different mirror.
Brexit is not to do with expelling the "forrin". It is to do with not being controlled by an unaccountable, demonstrably irreformable EU.
Having a headspace dominated by 'EU' (not "Europe") is far more parochial than looking more widely.
Let's see what happens.
The thing that is really odd is that RP voted for Brexit from memory - but now he's as arch a Europhile extremist as Scott or williamglenn.
Having examined some of RP's posting, I think we might describe his views as volatile.
(My recollection like you is he had a fit about the Remain campaign, and voted Leave).
My EFTA / EEA position hasn't changed throughout. We were inevitably going to pushed to the extremities of the two-speed Europe because we were not part of the Euro / Schengen / Army etc. So better to step off of our own volition than be flung off. Given the choice of what we now have or continued EU membership I'd stay in the EU - but that wasn't the only option.
That we are shouting about free trade having just left the free trade area is laughable. You can trade freely with the EU without being a member. We have chosen not to.
Really don't understand your last paragraph. We have chosen to trade freely with the EU without being a member. Whether that proves to be a good idea or not only time will tell.
Actually we haven't and RP is absolutely right on this. We have chosen to trade freely in certain specific areas. Had we chosen the EFTA/EEA route it would have been far more comprehensive. The only difference between RP and myself is I would still have chosen this over staying in. In the end trade, as he mentions, is only one small part of the EU project and the rest of it negates value we get from membership.
I accept that if we had gone down the EFTA/EEA route we would have freer trade, particularly in services. But we would be more tied to EU law than I wanted us to be. Its a trade off and I am not unhappy about where we have ended up although I will be a lot happier once we have agreed mutual recognition of regulation in services.
We would not have been tied to EU law at all. We would have come under the EFTA court which operates on unanimity not majority.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Technical correction - you can't "avoid" something that was never there - but I take the point you're making. I imagine most Scottish voters subscribe to the view that a Thin Deal is better than No Deal, and no doubt many of them were as fooled by the No Deal hyping as people down here were.
How are you feeling now about Georgia btw? Is there a degree of concern creeping in that the Dems could do it and leave you £25 in the hole?
I think the GOP will hold at least 1 of the Georgia seats, probably Purdue's and thus narrowly hold the Senate but either way it will not break the bank
It won't? That's good to hear. But this "double or quits" stuff can creep up on you. This one plus a few dozen more and you'll be tossing me the keys to your nouveau Essex mansion plus People Carrier.
You haven't even won yet, there is also a chance it could be me winning and you losing
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
No ‘thumping’ SNP majority today?
Tory surge Klaxon instead. Widow Twankey from the Lords and Buttons as a List MSP candidate ( too cowardly to try and get elected ) will surely make it happen.
It’s weird that blusterers like HYUFD are perpetually issuing threats and waving their big (small) stick, yet they’re too feart to defend their marvellous Union in a peaceful, mutually agreed vote.
In my time I’ve seen progressive Unionism, muscular Unionism, angry Unionism, generous Unionism, bribing Unionism, confident Unionism and shy Unionism among others, but it’s the first time that gutless Unionism seems to be entirely the order of the day.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Technical correction - you can't "avoid" something that was never there - but I take the point you're making. I imagine most Scottish voters subscribe to the view that a Thin Deal is better than No Deal, and no doubt many of them were as fooled by the No Deal hyping as people down here were.
How are you feeling now about Georgia btw? Is there a degree of concern creeping in that the Dems could do it and leave you £25 in the hole?
I think the GOP will hold at least 1 of the Georgia seats, probably Purdue's and thus narrowly hold the Senate but either way it will not break the bank
It won't? That's good to hear. But this "double or quits" stuff can creep up on you. This one plus a few dozen more and you'll be tossing me the keys to your nouveau Essex mansion plus People Carrier.
You haven't even won yet, there is also a chance it could be me winning and you losing
But if you win that's the Quits rather than the Double and it's all over between us. So I'm in that win/flat position that one only gets to see maybe a handful of times in a lifetime. And if you lose your pride will keep you doubling up and trying to get even. It's a dangerous place to be in.
OMG you are so far gone you respect the Serbian imperialism don't you? 🤦🏻♂️
Horrifying.
The interesting thing about some of the now independent countries in Eastern Europe & the Balkans .... is that some of them have never existed before as independent entities.
They existed as ethnically distinct regions -- conquered and re-conquered by the Ottoman Turks or Austro-Hungary or the Russian Empire or incorporated in Yugoslavia and its precursor states.
But Slovenia, or Slovakia, or Montenegro, or Macedonia, or Moldova, or Latvia exist now as independent sovereign states, whereas throughout most of European history, they did not. In some cases, they have no previous history as independent states.
Viewed from this standpoint, Scotland or Wales rightly think that there is absolutely no reason why we could not be independent states.
I do think if Scotland becomes independent, then there are wider consequences, not just for Wales. It will accelerate the secessions of a number of other regions around the world, most obviously Quebec, Catalonia, Corsica.
It will be a **much, much more significant** event than Brexit, globally speaking.
Ah yes. This was the quote I sought to recreate from memory in my earlier post. The exact one is even more deluded and bombastic!
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Snap!
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
I know! It's not all Leavers, I get that, and there is a lot to be said for "moving on", I get that too, but there is also a lot to be said for trying in a spirit of dispassionate intellectual inquiry to understand the drivers behind such a cosmic political decision as Brexit.
Imperial nostalgia was a pull for parts of the Brexit elite.
Xenophobia was a factor for some brexit voters. However taking Duncan Smith's silly remarks and generalising about leavers is mistaken.
Indeed. You cannot tar all with one brush. Or even 2 brushes. There were 17.4m reasons for voting Leave. What I'm talking about is arriving at a list of the main drivers and assigning a relative weight to each. I have a draft which I've been working on for a while. It's a living document, i.e. keeps changing, and so not yet suitable for sharing with confidence. Soon as it stops moving and dies, I plan to publish with the most enormous fanfare. Perhaps as a Header. Sometime in March, I would tentatively expect.
Ah yes. This was the quote I sought to recreate from memory in my earlier post. The exact one is even more deluded and bombastic!
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Snap!
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
I know! It's not all Leavers, I get that, and there is a lot to be said for "moving on", I get that too, but there is also a lot to be said for trying in a spirit of dispassionate intellectual inquiry to understand the drivers behind such a cosmic political decision as Brexit.
Imperial nostalgia was a pull for parts of the Brexit elite.
Xenophobia was a factor for some brexit voters. However taking Duncan Smith's silly remarks and generalising about leavers is mistaken.
As IDS is one of the key "founders" of Brexit, his comments are highly relevant and indeed insightful. They cannot be used to generalise to all Leavers of course, but perhaps to a certain type.
Happy New Year to all on PB, and thanks to the regular posters and thread header writers who've kept me informed and entertained over the past year.
I'm sensing a general pensiveness regarding the coming year. Less optimism over the vaccine than a few months ago. I have a horrible feeling 2021 is going to be more similar to 2020 than I would like.
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism certainly led to the bloody Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s
No, it was Serbian Imperialism.
No it came about as Slovenia and Croatia and then Bosnia tried to leave Yugoslavia following their own nationalist movements and the Yugoslav then Serbian government and army then responded
OMG you are so far gone you respect the Serbian imperialism don't you? 🤦🏻♂️
Horrifying.
Historical German and Austrian foreign policy does also actually bear some responsibility for the disaster, for recognising Croatia and Slovenia so early, and so helping to set off a chain of events. That was the continuation of a century and a half of international realpolitik, and the flip side of the Serbian issues with Milosevic, rather than simply principles.
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
I agree wrt Scotland but the NI anomaly is really just that. If they could get along a single united Irelandis not a catastrophe at all.
We’re in serious danger of ending up with an English state.
Certainly possible and it would make little sense but at least I'm clear that England alone would be a very powerful and viable force, economically, politically, culturally and socially. A Federated outcome of some sort would be preferable certainly.
The danger of England alone is that it will be a country born out of rejection and so angry with itself and with others.
I have rejected England. I cannot stand what we have become, can see no way to turn around the rank stupidity and arrogant exceptionalism, so I'm leaving.
England has turned into an insular we are better fuck you country which would make sense if we were still the industrial powerhouse of the 60s or had a financial sector we hadn't just signed away with a Brexit deal that doesn't protect it. So having become spiteful and nasty towards the countries more prosperous and less cunty than we are, we will slide to being even less prosperous and even nastier.
Or, more accurately, you will. Norniron will be fine, cast off the UK by a government so thick that it didn't realise it was doing it. Gibraltar, cast off to become British in Name Only. And Scotland, who at the very least will want their own slice of freedom and at the most will walk.
People in England want to be free of the forrin? Lets be honest, that includes Paddy and Jock just as much as it does the Hun and the Frogs. Time to accept that and let England do whatever it thinks a country of its stature is entitled to.
TBH I think you need to look in a different mirror.
Brexit is not to do with expelling the "forrin". It is to do with not being controlled by an unaccountable, demonstrably irreformable EU.
Having a headspace dominated by 'EU' (not "Europe") is far more parochial than looking more widely.
Let's see what happens.
The thing that is really odd is that RP voted for Brexit from memory - but now he's as arch a Europhile extremist as Scott or williamglenn.
Having examined some of RP's posting, I think we might describe his views as volatile.
(My recollection like you is he had a fit about the Remain campaign, and voted Leave).
My EFTA / EEA position hasn't changed throughout. We were inevitably going to pushed to the extremities of the two-speed Europe because we were not part of the Euro / Schengen / Army etc. So better to step off of our own volition than be flung off. Given the choice of what we now have or continued EU membership I'd stay in the EU - but that wasn't the only option.
That we are shouting about free trade having just left the free trade area is laughable. You can trade freely with the EU without being a member. We have chosen not to.
Really don't understand your last paragraph. We have chosen to trade freely with the EU without being a member. Whether that proves to be a good idea or not only time will tell.
Actually we haven't and RP is absolutely right on this. We have chosen to trade freely in certain specific areas. Had we chosen the EFTA/EEA route it would have been far more comprehensive. The only difference between RP and myself is I would still have chosen this over staying in. In the end trade, as he mentions, is only one small part of the EU project and the rest of it negates value we get from membership.
But what significant differences are there between our zero tariff/zero quota but outside of the customs area deal . . . with the EFTA/EEA Single Market but outside of the customs area deal?
The main issues RP complains about: customs declarations, rules of origin etc - they apply to the EEA too don't they? What would be significantly different between the EFTA and our deal now?
We have resolved this for Northern Ireland and your favourite PM Mrs May resolved it for the entire UK. The UK had no choice but to remain in a customs union and the EEA because of the GFA. That it would create a unique arrangement for the UK of combining EEA and CU membership outside the EU isn't an objection as we have just created a different unique arrangement.
I have to laugh at the stupidity of it. We have ended up with this omnishambles deal where we have the right to sign trade deals with elsewhere and change our standards, but only at the cost of tariffs and quotas. We have the right to have babies even though we can't have babies. Or, we could have agreed with the EU the exact same principle that isn't practical without imposing trade barriers and sinking our financial services sector.
Actually this is wrong. The UK could not stay inside the Customs Union under any circumstances. The reasons for this had nothing to do with the UK and everything to do with the EU. Membership of the Customs Union is explicitly reserved for EU members. To change this would have required rewriting of the basic treaties that underpin the EU and they did not want to do that because every time they do member countries want other changes made. It was made explicit at the start of the whole process from the EU that leaving the EU meant leaving the Customs Union even if we stayed in the Single Market.
A customs union not the customs union. You do not need to be an EU member to be in customs union with the EU - Turkey for example.
Brexit is weird. Gibraltar in Schengen, a border in the Irish Sea and relations with Scotland weaker than ever. And yet they celebrate. Weird.
I wonder if we'll be lumping Gibraltar Monaco, San Marino Andorra etc together, as 'small associated states of the EU' by the end of the year. And I suspect the next Northern Irish elections will result in losses for hard-line Unionists and gains for parties like Alliance and SDLP, which could just mean a SF First Minister. And as there'll be no Unionist alliance in Scotland the SNP will walk home. Indeed I wonder whether, if the LD's nationally adopt a very pro-EU (not necessarily Rejoin) line they'll have a revival ind Scotland.
I for one would welcome a united Ireland [though hopefully not led into it by SF] possible more so than the Republican government. The north brings with it many deep-rooted, complex and intransigent problems.
The break up of the UK is a catastrophe.
I agree wrt Scotland but the NI anomaly is really just that. If they could get along a single united Irelandis not a catastrophe at all.
We’re in serious danger of ending up with an English state.
Certainly possible and it would make little sense but at least I'm clear that England alone would be a very powerful and viable force, economically, politically, culturally and socially. A Federated outcome of some sort would be preferable certainly.
The danger of England alone is that it will be a country born out of rejection and so angry with itself and with others.
I have rejected England. I cannot stand what we have become, can see no way to turn around the rank stupidity and arrogant exceptionalism, so I'm leaving.
England has turned into an insular we are better fuck you country which would make sense if we were still the industrial powerhouse of the 60s or had a financial sector we hadn't just signed away with a Brexit deal that doesn't protect it. So having become spiteful and nasty towards the countries more prosperous and less cunty than we are, we will slide to being even less prosperous and even nastier.
Or, more accurately, you will. Norniron will be fine, cast off the UK by a government so thick that it didn't realise it was doing it. Gibraltar, cast off to become British in Name Only. And Scotland, who at the very least will want their own slice of freedom and at the most will walk.
People in England want to be free of the forrin? Lets be honest, that includes Paddy and Jock just as much as it does the Hun and the Frogs. Time to accept that and let England do whatever it thinks a country of its stature is entitled to.
TBH I think you need to look in a different mirror.
Brexit is not to do with expelling the "forrin". It is to do with not being controlled by an unaccountable, demonstrably irreformable EU.
Having a headspace dominated by 'EU' (not "Europe") is far more parochial than looking more widely.
Let's see what happens.
The thing that is really odd is that RP voted for Brexit from memory - but now he's as arch a Europhile extremist as Scott or williamglenn.
Having examined some of RP's posting, I think we might describe his views as volatile.
(My recollection like you is he had a fit about the Remain campaign, and voted Leave).
My EFTA / EEA position hasn't changed throughout. We were inevitably going to pushed to the extremities of the two-speed Europe because we were not part of the Euro / Schengen / Army etc. So better to step off of our own volition than be flung off. Given the choice of what we now have or continued EU membership I'd stay in the EU - but that wasn't the only option.
That we are shouting about free trade having just left the free trade area is laughable. You can trade freely with the EU without being a member. We have chosen not to.
Really don't understand your last paragraph. We have chosen to trade freely with the EU without being a member. Whether that proves to be a good idea or not only time will tell.
Actually we haven't and RP is absolutely right on this. We have chosen to trade freely in certain specific areas. Had we chosen the EFTA/EEA route it would have been far more comprehensive. The only difference between RP and myself is I would still have chosen this over staying in. In the end trade, as he mentions, is only one small part of the EU project and the rest of it negates value we get from membership.
But what significant differences are there between our zero tariff/zero quota but outside of the customs area deal . . . with the EFTA/EEA Single Market but outside of the customs area deal?
The main issues RP complains about: customs declarations, rules of origin etc - they apply to the EEA too don't they? What would be significantly different between the EFTA and our deal now?
We have resolved this for Northern Ireland and your favourite PM Mrs May resolved it for the entire UK. The UK had no choice but to remain in a customs union and the EEA because of the GFA. That it would create a unique arrangement for the UK of combining EEA and CU membership outside the EU isn't an objection as we have just created a different unique arrangement.
I have to laugh at the stupidity of it. We have ended up with this omnishambles deal where we have the right to sign trade deals with elsewhere and change our standards, but only at the cost of tariffs and quotas. We have the right to have babies even though we can't have babies. Or, we could have agreed with the EU the exact same principle that isn't practical without imposing trade barriers and sinking our financial services sector.
Actually this is wrong. The UK could not stay inside the Customs Union under any circumstances. The reasons for this had nothing to do with the UK and everything to do with the EU. Membership of the Customs Union is explicitly reserved for EU members. To change this would have required rewriting of the basic treaties that underpin the EU and they did not want to do that because every time they do member countries want other changes made. It was made explicit at the start of the whole process from the EU that leaving the EU meant leaving the Customs Union even if we stayed in the Single Market.
We could have been like Turkey, outside "the" customs Union but inside "a" customs union.
And yet still the lady behind the campaign isn't happy....apparently cos we brexit'ed, the UK has made it unlikely the EU will change their own stupid law...all our governments fault apparently.
The EU changed the VAT rules to allow national governments discretion on what gets zero rating, after UK urging, so Sunak's implied claim that Tampon Tax could be removed only by leaving the EU, is false. TBF Sunak doesn't outright lie about Brexit's supposed benefits, as Johnson and the rest of the cabinet do.
It would mean removing zero rating from another class of products though which is probably why uptake has been poor, only Ireland from a graphic I've seen. It's probably why we moved it to the reduced rate rather than zero rating.
OMG you are so far gone you respect the Serbian imperialism don't you? 🤦🏻♂️
Horrifying.
The interesting thing about some of the now independent countries in Eastern Europe & the Balkans .... is that some of them have never existed before as independent entities.
They existed as ethnically distinct regions -- conquered and re-conquered by the Ottoman Turks or Austro-Hungary or the Russian Empire or incorporated in Yugoslavia and its precursor states.
But Slovenia, or Slovakia, or Montenegro, or Macedonia, or Moldova, or Latvia exist now as independent sovereign states, whereas throughout most of European history, they did not. In some cases, they have no previous history as independent states.
Viewed from this standpoint, Scotland or Wales rightly think that there is absolutely no reason why we could not be independent states.
I do think if Scotland becomes independent, then there are wider consequences, not just for Wales. It will accelerate the secessions of a number of other regions around the world, most obviously Quebec, Catalonia, Corsica.
It will be a **much, much more significant** event than Brexit, globally speaking.
Most of the ex Yugoslavian or ex USSR states are now members of the EU or seeking to join the EU.
There may therefore be an argument for Scotland to leave the UK to join the EU, though I would oppose it, as Scotland voted to stay in the EU, there is absolutely no argument however for Wales to leave the UK given Wales also voted to leave the EU just like England.
Scottish independence being used by Catalonia to push for independence from Spain is one reason why Spain is unlikely to look kindly on an independent Scotland seeking to join the EU. After 2 unsuccessful independence referendums Quebec I think has resolved its situation with devomax within Canada
Ah yes. This was the quote I sought to recreate from memory in my earlier post. The exact one is even more deluded and bombastic!
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Snap!
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
I know! It's not all Leavers, I get that, and there is a lot to be said for "moving on", I get that too, but there is also a lot to be said for trying in a spirit of dispassionate intellectual inquiry to understand the drivers behind such a cosmic political decision as Brexit.
Imperial nostalgia was a pull for parts of the Brexit elite.
Xenophobia was a factor for some brexit voters. However taking Duncan Smith's silly remarks and generalising about leavers is mistaken.
As IDS is one of the key "founders" of Brexit, his comments are highly relevant and indeed insightful. They cannot be used to generalise to all Leavers of course, but perhaps to a certain type.
IDS and Farage are certainly key movers in Brexit, Duncan-Smith since Maastricht, and Farage since being leader of UKIP. Between IDS's sexual frustration and imperial nostalgia on the hand, and Farage's managing to live down to even any usual level of his magnanimity by being more resentful in victory than in defeat, they certainly haven't put on a particularly impressive performance today.
Hannan is usually a sunnier face, so perhaps something a bit more hopeful from him.
This is a useful header because of the final para on Scotland. Philip frames the decision for Johnson (assuming the SNP get that Holyrood victory) as one between what is good for the country and what is good for him - for Johnson, I mean, not Philip, although it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes - the options being respectively granting and denying Sindy2. If we accept that framing, and I think I probably do, it becomes possible to predict in advance to around a 99.95% level of confidence what the outcome will be.
Yep. No Ref. Which makes the following 2 bets good value at current odds -
(i) Back no Sindy2 before 2025 at 2.1 (ii) Lay Sindy2 in 2022 at 4.8
I prefer (ii).
Yes we Tories will block indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year though I think now No Deal is avoided the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced
Technical correction - you can't "avoid" something that was never there - but I take the point you're making. I imagine most Scottish voters subscribe to the view that a Thin Deal is better than No Deal, and no doubt many of them were as fooled by the No Deal hyping as people down here were.
How are you feeling now about Georgia btw? Is there a degree of concern creeping in that the Dems could do it and leave you £25 in the hole?
I think the GOP will hold at least 1 of the Georgia seats, probably Purdue's and thus narrowly hold the Senate but either way it will not break the bank
It won't? That's good to hear. But this "double or quits" stuff can creep up on you. This one plus a few dozen more and you'll be tossing me the keys to your nouveau Essex mansion plus People Carrier.
You haven't even won yet, there is also a chance it could be me winning and you losing
But if you win that's the Quits rather than the Double and it's all over between us. So I'm in that win/flat position that one only gets to see maybe a handful of times in a lifetime. And if you lose your pride will keep you doubling up and trying to get even. It's a dangerous place to be in.
I never start bets myself, including in this case where it was you who started it
I spent time over the festive period watching the entire 26 episodes of the World at War. I had never done it previously. If you haven't, I suggest you do. It is a masterwork. It also provides some perspective. So many of the people interviewed were, like I am now, in their mid-50s. They were combatants, they were civilians, they were victims, they were perpetrators and they came from all the countries involved. I cannot imagine having to live with the weight of the memories they carried with them each and every day - the deep pain, the trauma, the suffering, the guilt. But they did; tens of millions of them. Our duty is to ensure that it never happens again; that nationalism never takes root as it did before. We must not run away from that.
War is not about nationalism.
Nationalism can be healthy, it typically is.
Do not confuse nationalism with jingoism.
You're wrong there Philip.
Nationalism is always bad news; patriotism is good for nothing (except promulgating wars).
Codswallop. You're projecting just because you don't like something. Nationalism is very good news much of the time.
By ‘much of the time’ do you mean that during the C20 nationalism hadn’t mired us in a world war 90% of the time.
Nationalism didn't mire us in world wars.
What then caused WW1 if not nationalism?
Bit of imperialism involved...
Precisely.
Imperialism is the antithesis of nationalism.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
How? Was Gandhi an imperialist or a nationalist?
Nationalism led to the break-up of empires. Empires are about expanding, nationalism is about dividing. It is expanding not dividing that leads to wars and conflict.
Was World War I was caused by expansionist empires fighting each other, or was it nationalist countries seeking to manage their own affairs independently.
The main belligerents in World War One were the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and their allies . . . do you notice a common factor amongst those? Was it imperialism or nationalism?
Imperialism absolutely led to multiple World Wars.
Nationalism + Power + Aggression = Imperialism.
So Nationalism != Aggression So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
But imperialism is fueled by nationalism, specifically the belief of the imperialist power that they are better than those they colonize.
I'd put it as follows regarding Nationalism: It can be a good thing - a great thing even - if the cause is to achieve self-determination. All other forms are toxic.
Nationalism doesn't involve a belief that you are superior. Some people add superiority for other reasons, eg racism, but that has nothing to do with nationalism as the ideology.
Look at the definition of nationalism in Wikipedia, what is unreasonable about this as an ideology?
Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people),[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][8][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).[2]
The idea of self-determination and popular sovereignty is a good thing not a bad thing. The only element I'd disagree with there is ethnicity and religion - as far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to come to this country and make it their home is welcome to this nation and a part of it.
Once a nationalist movement has achieved self-determination its job is over. Nationalism as the dominant force in a country that already has independence, particularly one which is also a power, is in practice overwhelmingly likely to assume MAGA, Front Nationale, type manifestions which is toxic. And even if outward aggression is avoided, nationalism absent a genuine independence cause will steer domestically towards insularity and stasis.
There may therefore be an argument for Scotland to leave the UK to join the EU, though I would oppose it, as Scotland voted to stay in the EU, there is absolutely no argument however for Wales to leave the UK given Wales also voted to leave the EU just like England.
Scottish independence being used by Catalonia to push for independence from Spain is one reason why Spain is unlikely to look kindly on an independent Scotland seeking to join the EU. After 2 unsuccessful independence referendums Quebec I think has resolved its situation with devomax within Canada
I actually wonder how much time you have spent in some of these parts of the world on which you regularly pontificate.
Have you ever been to Quebec? Have you ever been to Scotland?
There may therefore be an argument for Scotland to leave the UK to join the EU, though I would oppose it, as Scotland voted to stay in the EU, there is absolutely no argument however for Wales to leave the UK given Wales also voted to leave the EU just like England.
Scottish independence being used by Catalonia to push for independence from Spain is one reason why Spain is unlikely to look kindly on an independent Scotland seeking to join the EU. After 2 unsuccessful independence referendums Quebec I think has resolved its situation with devomax within Canada
I actually wonder how much time you have spent in some of these parts of the world on which you regularly pontificate.
Have you ever been to Quebec? Have you ever been to Scotland?
I have been to Scotland multiple times, I have not been to Quebec but 25 years after it voted by 51% to 49% to stay in Canada it has still not had another independence vote.
Wales of course having voted to leave the EU just like England can have no complaints whatsoever about Brexit
Can anyone explain why we continue to give out honours to people who have chosen not to live in the UK for tax purposes?
Lewis Hamilton? The honours committee desperately needed to find someone, anyone, that people had heard of, in order to get the dullest honours list of the millennium on to the front pages.
Ah yes. This was the quote I sought to recreate from memory in my earlier post. The exact one is even more deluded and bombastic!
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Snap!
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
I know! It's not all Leavers, I get that, and there is a lot to be said for "moving on", I get that too, but there is also a lot to be said for trying in a spirit of dispassionate intellectual inquiry to understand the drivers behind such a cosmic political decision as Brexit.
I don't get the "moving on" thing. We all understand that Leave won the referendum and we have left the EU, but why is that the end of the argument? Eurosceptics never reconciled themselves to us being in the EU - and it is thanks to their irreconcilability that we left. The country is a lot more evenly split than it was in 1975, and polling suggests a majority already regrets the decision to leave. Pro-EU people would be insane to just roll over and "move on". There will be plenty of opportunity to profit from the inevitable disappointments of Brexit, to be honest I see a very fruitful period for nurturing Pro EU nostalgia and leveraging resentment at Leaver lies in the years ahead.
Ah yes. This was the quote I sought to recreate from memory in my earlier post. The exact one is even more deluded and bombastic!
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Snap!
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
I know! It's not all Leavers, I get that, and there is a lot to be said for "moving on", I get that too, but there is also a lot to be said for trying in a spirit of dispassionate intellectual inquiry to understand the drivers behind such a cosmic political decision as Brexit.
I don't get the "moving on" thing. We all understand that Leave won the referendum and we have left the EU, but why is that the end of the argument? Eurosceptics never reconciled themselves to us being in the EU - and it is thanks to their irreconcilability that we left. The country is a lot more evenly split than it was in 1975, and polling suggests a majority already regrets the decision to leave. Pro-EU people would be insane to just roll over and "move on". There will be plenty of opportunity to profit from the inevitable disappointments of Brexit, to be honest I see a very fruitful period for nurturing Pro EU nostalgia and leveraging resentment at Leaver lies in the years ahead.
That is what I hope to see. It would be disappointing otherwise. Had a blast of sadness just yesterday about what has happened. And it's not always sadness, sometimes it's anger. But by "get it", I mean I can understand the desire amongst 2 large groupings - Leavers and the agnostic uncommitted - to see the intensity of the debate fade away. I'm not quite as confident as you that it won't.
Comments
The Brexit Tory "boyos" I work with may not have liked the EU, but for different reasons than did Rees Mogg.
The Welsh Brexiteers despise the English more than they did the EU.
I would say that imperialism dominated the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century leading to many wars over the centuries and ultimately the first and second world wars. Even Japan was Imperialist in WWII.
I would argue that the latter half of the 20th century, from Gandhi leading India to freedom onwards, has been dominated increasingly by peaceful nationalism that has brought about the end of the age of imperialism.
I would rather have peaceful nationalism than jingoistic imperialism - can you agree with that?
Starmers just another Labour windbag, he will never give up any real powers to Scotland as it is the only colony they have left.
Nostalgia for days of Empire?
No. Course not. Not in the mix at all.
Which is why we should recognise democratic mandates and not try to settle this with force.
Agreed?
Researchers at Imperial College London have now confirmed it increases the R number - the number of people that one infected person will pass on a virus to - by about 0.4 to 0.7.
We should not be looking to dominate the world. What a bloody stupid thing to say.
However, you have returned full of bombast and bravura.
You don't know that there won't be an independent Scotland. You simply don't know that. So don't be an arse by posting it to provoke reaction.
So Nationalism != Imperialism
Peaceful nationalism is a good thing. It is the aggression that makes up imperialism which is bad.
Sorry not to have time to debate it further, I recognise there are two sides to the argument and your views are sincerely held. I just think you are wrong on this.
Another time maybe...
Not about xenophobia, not about racism, not about hatred of the EU, not about imperial nostalgia, I think I’ve got that right.
Only a civil war, the loss of perceived economic competence and the arrival of an outstanding LOTO allowed a change of government in 1997. Only the complete collapse of any competence economically, the arrival of a plausible LOTO and the selection of Gordon Brown as Blair's replacement caused Labour to lose office in 2010 (just). What is likely to cause such disruption as to cause the Tories to lose in 2024? There are a few possibilities but at least 1 of the normal criteria seem to me not to be met. I think that the probability at the moment is another, if reduced, Tory majority..
We do need to think about this. As we have seen in Scotland and as was being debated on here yesterday things do not go well when the boundaries between the state and a single political party become excessively blurred.
At most we would end up with a Madrid and Catalonia 2017 style standoff
Final thought on the topic. For me Nationalism is the desire to rule yourselves, Imperialism is the desire to rule others.
One is good, one is bad.
HYUFD wanting to deny a second independence referendum even if the Scots vote for it is imperialistic.
YouGov polling on 30th December: "Do you think MPs should vote to accept the deal or reject the trade deal?" Response from Scots only: 47% accept, 17% block, 36% don't know.
With her "leave the light on" for Scotland comment, she's making a similar misjudgment. Support for rejoining the EU is not going to be anything like as strong as she thinks it will be, even though that's now the pretext behind the case for a second vote on separation from the UK.
I would call myself both a liberal and a nationalist. I would not call myself an American style patriot nor an American style liberal.
Labour would have won in 1997 even without Blair but more narrowly, the Tories even under David Davis would likely have ended up largest party in 2010 but the LDs might have backed Labour rather than the Tories then
In the end it was a narrow Biden win but with Trump being the first losing candidate to win both Ohio and Florida since Nixon in 1960
A thoughtful article on this topic. The suggestion that Brexit is the UK reaching out to the wider world is completely false. (In fact I might support it if it were true):
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/1344928909738045440
And the article linked in this tweet. The deal maybe looks more like a truce than a stable arrangement. The EU does need to decide on how it wants to involve close non-member countries in its project. Obviously less of a problem for the UK than the fact the UK doesn't know what it wants to be.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1344408770961690624
It still doesn't mean imperialism though.
Now we have a Deal with the EU and the SNP have rejected it I think the SNP vote will fall back to its 45% hardcore and that may not be enough for an SNP majority, especially with Unionist tactical voting
I'd put it as follows regarding Nationalism: It can be a good thing - a great thing even - if the cause is to achieve self-determination. All other forms are toxic.
In my time I’ve seen progressive Unionism, muscular Unionism, angry Unionism, generous Unionism, bribing Unionism, confident Unionism and shy Unionism among others, but it’s the first time that gutless Unionism seems to be entirely the order of the day.
The issues will start when we move to join CPTPP as it requires some areas of divergence in standards with the EU to align more with APAC and the US, it could result in some arbitration set tariffs with the EU. Though I'm sure the EU will want to avoid that as every tariff they push for reduces the overall value of the deal for the UK and as time passes the UK will become a lot better at dealing with an enlarged customs border and adapting supply chains for the new relationship that doesn't have an joint customs area.
Expect a lot of rehashes of the current arguments when that happens later on this year.
Does IDS want to be the dominant one or be dominated?
Ewwww. Brain bleach please.
Look at the definition of nationalism in Wikipedia, what is unreasonable about this as an ideology?
Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people),[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][8][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).[2]
The idea of self-determination and popular sovereignty is a good thing not a bad thing. The only element I'd disagree with there is ethnicity and religion - as far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to come to this country and make it their home is welcome to this nation and a part of it.
What led to the Yugoslav wars was the idiotic creation of Yugoslavia in the first place - a fake country that could only be held together by a Dictator and the joint fear on the part of the US and Soviets of WW3 if it fell apart during the Cold War.
As soon as those two factors disappeared there was nothing that was going to hold together the religious and cultural factions that had been hating each other for a thousand years.
As we have seen in so many cases, false amalgamations of nations will eventually lead to conflict, either armed or social.
This guys nothing like a PB Scotch expert so he’s probably wrong.
https://twitter.com/trapdoorcat/status/1344422060815249412?s=21
It does for "nationalist" what the lipstick does for the pig.
Horrifying.
Labour only lasted in power for 6 years from 1945 to 1951 under Attlee and for 6 years from 1964 to 1970 and 5 years from 1974 to 1979 under Wilson and Wilson and Callaghan, Heath's Tories only lasted in power for 4 years from 1970 to 1974.
Starmer does not strike me as a charismatic and dominant PM figure in the shape of a Blair or a Thatcher, if he does become PM in 2024 he will be more of a Wilson or Heath figure and I expect a strong Tory opposition which would almost certainly still have a majority in England could have a chance to return to power at the next election after that
Xenophobia was a factor for some brexit voters. However taking Duncan Smith's silly remarks and generalising about leavers is mistaken.
I see that both news channels have live coverage of nothing happening at Dover. Slow news day...
They existed as ethnically distinct regions -- conquered and re-conquered by the Ottoman Turks or Austro-Hungary or the Russian Empire or incorporated in Yugoslavia and its precursor states.
But Slovenia, or Slovakia, or Montenegro, or Macedonia, or Moldova, or Latvia exist now as independent sovereign states, whereas throughout most of European history, they did not. In some cases, they have no previous history as independent states.
Viewed from this standpoint, Scotland or Wales rightly think that there is absolutely no reason why we could not be independent states.
I do think if Scotland becomes independent, then there are wider consequences, not just for Wales. It will accelerate the secessions of a number of other regions around the world, most obviously Quebec, Catalonia, Corsica.
It will be a **much, much more significant** event than Brexit, globally speaking.
They cannot be used to generalise to all Leavers of course, but perhaps to a certain type.
I'm sensing a general pensiveness regarding the coming year. Less optimism over the vaccine than a few months ago. I have a horrible feeling 2021 is going to be more similar to 2020 than I would like.
There may therefore be an argument for Scotland to leave the UK to join the EU, though I would oppose it, as Scotland voted to stay in the EU, there is absolutely no argument however for Wales to leave the UK given Wales also voted to leave the EU just like England.
Scottish independence being used by Catalonia to push for independence from Spain is one reason why Spain is unlikely to look kindly on an independent Scotland seeking to join the EU. After 2 unsuccessful independence referendums Quebec I think has resolved its situation with devomax within Canada
Hannan is usually a sunnier face, so perhaps something a bit more hopeful from him.
Have you ever been to Quebec? Have you ever been to Scotland?
Wales of course having voted to leave the EU just like England can have no complaints whatsoever about Brexit
The country is a lot more evenly split than it was in 1975, and polling suggests a majority already regrets the decision to leave. Pro-EU people would be insane to just roll over and "move on". There will be plenty of opportunity to profit from the inevitable disappointments of Brexit, to be honest I see a very fruitful period for nurturing Pro EU nostalgia and leveraging resentment at Leaver lies in the years ahead.
Happy New Year, let’s hope 2021 is better than 2020 was for most of us!
Happy New Year!