To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
HYUFD strikes me as someone about to be put on the Tory PPC list. I am sure he is closer to Tory thinking (if I may use the two words together) than anyone else on this blog. So, I am certain Boris will say no.
First, Boris is very likely to lose any referendum called soon -- so, for sure, he will leave it & hope either that something turns up or that it eventually becomes someone else's problem (Rishi 's or SKS's).
Second, it gives him a huge stick with which to clobber SKS in the next General Election. He can raise the spectre of a weak Labour party forced to deal with the SNP to defenestrate the Tories & enter Government.
So, for Boris, there are zero advantages in saying yes, and plenty of advantages in saying no.
And Boris is mainly concerned about Boris ....
I would agree, but in addition we know Johnson is a procrastinator. He will delay as long as possible.
And he might start off saying No but then eventually cave if things get intense.
This is why I prefer to lay a 2022 Sindy at 4.8 than back a no Sindy by 1st Jan 2025 at 2.1.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Is ‘BJ will not allow the Scots to have another referendum ‘cos they hate him and he knows he’ll lose’ going to be at the forefront of the justifications for not having a referendum?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
We need to move away from the old lingo of hard and soft brexits. It's about the deal now and the new binary is thin - like this starter for ten from Johnson - or thick, which Labour would shoot for. Not thick as in stupid - to head off the cheap cracks - but thick as in substantial in scope and rich in detail.
How much thicker do you need than zero tariffs, zero quotas and 1200 pages of text?
I can’t get involved with you for the time being, Philip. I'm trying to stop smoking.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Is ‘BJ will not allow the Scots to have another referendum ‘cos they hate him and he knows he’ll lose’ going to be at the forefront of the justifications for not having a referendum?
Churchillian!
It's naked electoral calculation, something I'd hope an SNP fan would appreciate.
As a matter of fact, I don't think Boris would lose, but he would undoubtedly cost the campaign votes, and I would prefer Scottish voters to endorse the Union with genuine satisfaction, not through gritted teeth.
I don't mean the argument. I mean the signs. As a driver they make it much harder to read
We have had years of "Welsh road signs make you crash your car" nonsense.
"I can't read it. It made me drive my car off the road. The Welsh road sign is the last thing I remember before waking up in a hospital bed" said a Mr ScottP. "I am now brain-dead and post innumerable rubbish on a blog".
The Director of the Port of Calais insisting that so long as people do their paperwork properly not only is today going well on the border but there is no reason for problems when traffic volumes are back to normal either.
Almost as if there's no reason to be afraid because although there might be some disruption as people get used to the new paperwork, it is in everyone's interests to make this work correctly.
Well from my experience of travelling to France from the very dim and distant past and presenting professionally produced carnets for demo and exhibition stuff I got stopped every single time and had to answer questions on it. Presumably this is because they naturally don't believe you when you say you are bringing it all back and want to check that really is your intention. In my case it was a car load. Just think what you can get in a MccLaren lorry full of car parts or a Rolling Stones lorry full of stage equipment and electronics.
Having the right paperwork is not all that is required.
Though I suspect that is part of the point - that nonsense already happens so it happening again in the future won't be new.
The example gave earlier today on Sky was a ferry full of 36 HGVs, 33 got a green light saying to drive off and enter the roads as normal, no halt whatsoever. 3 HGVs of 36 got an amber light saying to pull over for a check of some sort.
So that's over 90% of HGVs cleared up front without being halted. But then of those 3 that were halted would some of those 3 have been halted already previously like you are typically?
No it doesn't already happen. It used to, then because of the EU it stopped and I just waltzed through, but it will now start all over again. I am not talking about exports but carnets. I suspect all will get stopped.
I mentioned sometime ago about a massive deal I was subcontracted to work on in Cyprus, pre Cyprus being in the EU. It was a £10m deal, with £1m annual maintenance plus all sorts of subsequent addons. I was contracted to manage the pre-sales project which was 3 months, with a 3 week demo at the end. We desperately needed a piece of specialist equipment flown out. Our competitors were in the same boat. The lack of the equipment pretty much broke our preparation because it was held up in customs. Fortunately our competition had the same issue (I know because I was mistaken for the competition when chasing customs). In future their equipment will sail through, but stuff from the UK won't (Carnet please? What is it? Why do you want this here? Can't you get it locally? etc, etc). Deal lost. Only way around that is to move out of the UK.
Philip are you familiar with carnets?
I must admit I assume we are reverting to them and I don't know that, but it would be logical.
So this is not an export. You are promising to bring the stuff back. Hence the customs people are particularly interested that you really are doing so hence the extra checks and those checks are more than just the items but questions like why? I got a bit of a grilling each time and every single time, not just occasionally. Friendly each time, but sitting in an office being asked questions and all I had were in the car were PCs, collapsible stands and demo equipment. Imagine if you are taking F1 stuff or concert stuff in several lorries. I can't imagine how F1 teams deal with broken cars, used tyres, etc, although I guess they will be practiced at it for non EU countries. Out of my comfort zone now re knowledge, but just pointing out these things are not as simple as 'it will be ok'.
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Indeed and almost all of them live in Paris, France is even more centralised and elitist than we are
The savage hatred of "Paris" - meaning the elite - in France, is something to behold.
In rural France, British people are regarded as almost human, in comparison to "Parisians".
I have many friends in France having worked for a French company for 18 years prior to starting consulting. If anyone ever asked you whether you visited France much and you said yes I spend a lot of time in Paris the immediate response was 'Paris is not France'. The was the same response whether it was in Nantes, Reims or Marseille. They really, deeply loathed Parisians.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
HYUFD strikes me as someone about to be put on the Tory PPC list. I am sure he is closer to Tory thinking (if I may use the two words together) than anyone else on this blog. So, I am certain Boris will say no.
First, Boris is very likely to lose any referendum called soon -- so, for sure, he will leave it & hope either that something turns up or that it eventually becomes someone else's problem (Rishi 's or SKS's).
Second, it gives him a huge stick with which to clobber SKS in the next General Election. He can raise the spectre of a weak Labour party forced to deal with the SNP to defenestrate the Tories & enter Government.
So, for Boris, there are zero advantages in saying yes, and plenty of advantages in saying no.
And Boris is mainly concerned about Boris ....
I would agree, but in addition we know Johnson is a procrastinator. He will delay as long as possible.
And he might start off saying No but then eventually cave if things get intense.
This is why I prefer to lay a 2022 Sindy at 4.8 than back a no Sindy by 1st Jan 2025 at 2.1.
A compromise solution would be to pledge to put it in the Conservatives' next manifesto to hold one by the end of the next parliament if they win. Not sure how I feel about it, but it would assuage some whilst avoiding plunging the country in to an immediate constitutional referendum quite so soon after Brexit.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
Here, straight out of the blocks, is what looks suspiciously like a genuine T-BOB, a Tangible Benefit Of Brexit. Nothing to do with fish or "buccaneering" either.
I predict that 10 years from now it still tops the list.
I am pleased, but the 'no tangible benefits evah!!1!' crowd makes a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the European Union project, which is to make the EU fairer - not richer, or more competitive, but fairer. It came up in our discussions yesterday about free ports/enterprise zones. The EU basically killed them because they are, in essence, unfair - they are an attempt to advantage certain businesses.
As a wealthier part of the EU, our job was not to grow our own economy, but to facilitate capital outflow to other, poorer parts of the EU. That was working well. The struggle we had in deriving value from the EU was not a bug, it was a feature. We will have to be trying *really* hard for there not to be a tangible benefit.
Novel argument, but still hilariously false.
It is neither false, nor especially novel - as a matter of fact, most EU people will tell you the same thing.
Yes, though it is a quid pro, particularly for the post 1980 expansion. The less developed parts of Europe, initially Spain, Portugal and Greece were much less economically developed, and all had dictatorships within very recent memory. In return for economic redistribution, and fostering of free democracies, the former EU9 gained free access to markets so it was not a zero sum game. The same was later true for the A8 and later A2. Austria, Sweden and Finland joined for different reasons.
It will take some further decades for the economies and political systems to mature, particularly in countries with long histories of foreign domination or dictatorship. We should be rightly proud of our role in raising Southern and Eastern Europe from the poverty and despotism that has long been their curse.
Of course it is a little patchy, but parts of Eastern Europe are unrecognisable from 30 years ago, with a lifestyle as developed, or more so, than parts of the Original 9 countries.
Their economies are now growing strongly, and would have been a real asset to our exporters should we have Remained, particularly with our diaspora links. You might say "our job here is done", but I would argue that not we are not yet there, and that there needs to be more regional development across the continent, so Wales prospers as well as Bohemia, that Picardy and Sicily are as prosperous as Bavaria etc.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Far from it, as Madrid has shown in Catalonia illegal referendums held by nationalist governments can be ignored.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
The specimen date case graphs look awful, but I don't know whether there's a Christmas effect due to people delaying tests they might otherwise had taken on Christmas Day.
We wait to see.
cases look like this
We won't be out of the Christmas Effect until maybe Wednesday next week.
Is that yesterday's chart? The 29th currently has 64k. (And Wales and NI haven't even reported today.)
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on health, mental illness, family breakdown, and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other European countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Apart from the fact that median income is higher in the UK than it is in France . . .
Also, France's "failing" parts, such as the banlieues around Paris, are far more grim than the grimmest parts of the UK.
(That being said, there are a lot of things we should take from the French. Their idea of allowing family tax allowances to stack is genius, and is a core reason why their TFR is so much better than... ooohhh... almost everywhere else.)
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino, Carlotta, MarqueeMark etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
I think now No Deal has been avoided the chances of an SNP majority in May are significantly reduced anyway especially given the SNP even refused to back the Deal but the position holds regardless
Here, straight out of the blocks, is what looks suspiciously like a genuine T-BOB, a Tangible Benefit Of Brexit. Nothing to do with fish or "buccaneering" either.
I predict that 10 years from now it still tops the list.
I am pleased, but the 'no tangible benefits evah!!1!' crowd makes a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the European Union project, which is to make the EU fairer - not richer, or more competitive, but fairer. It came up in our discussions yesterday about free ports/enterprise zones. The EU basically killed them because they are, in essence, unfair - they are an attempt to advantage certain businesses.
As a wealthier part of the EU, our job was not to grow our own economy, but to facilitate capital outflow to other, poorer parts of the EU. That was working well. The struggle we had in deriving value from the EU was not a bug, it was a feature. We will have to be trying *really* hard for there not to be a tangible benefit.
Novel argument, but still hilariously false.
It is neither false, nor especially novel - as a matter of fact, most EU people will tell you the same thing.
Yes, though it is a quid pro, particularly for the post 1980 expansion. The less developed parts of Europe, initially Spain, Portugal and Greece were much less economically developed, and all had dictatorships within very recent memory. In return for economic redistribution, and fostering of free democracies, the former EU9 gained free access to markets so it was not a zero sum game. The same was later true for the A8 and later A2. Austria, Sweden and Finland joined for different reasons.
It will take some further decades for the economies and political systems to mature, particularly in countries with long histories of foreign domination or dictatorship. We should be rightly proud of our role in raising Southern and Eastern Europe from the poverty and despotism that has long been their curse.
Of course it is a little patchy, but parts of Eastern Europe are unrecognisable from 30 years ago, with a lifestyle as developed, or more so, than parts of the Original 9 countries.
Their economies are now growing strongly, and would have been a real asset to our exporters should we have Remained, particularly with our diaspora links. You might say "our job here is done", but I would argue that not we are not yet there, and that there needs to be more regional development across the continent, so Wales prospers as well as Bohemia, that Picardy and Sicily are as prosperous as Bavaria etc.
The prosperity of Wales is something that is the UK & Welsh Government's responsibility, and it has the added incentive of wanting Welsh votes and seats in General and Welsh elections.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
HYUFD strikes me as someone about to be put on the Tory PPC list. I am sure he is closer to Tory thinking (if I may use the two words together) than anyone else on this blog. So, I am certain Boris will say no.
First, Boris is very likely to lose any referendum called soon -- so, for sure, he will leave it & hope either that something turns up or that it eventually becomes someone else's problem (Rishi 's or SKS's).
Second, it gives him a huge stick with which to clobber SKS in the next General Election. He can raise the spectre of a weak Labour party forced to deal with the SNP to defenestrate the Tories & enter Government.
So, for Boris, there are zero advantages in saying yes, and plenty of advantages in saying no.
And Boris is mainly concerned about Boris ....
I would agree, but in addition we know Johnson is a procrastinator. He will delay as long as possible.
And he might start off saying No but then eventually cave if things get intense.
This is why I prefer to lay a 2022 Sindy at 4.8 than back a no Sindy by 1st Jan 2025 at 2.1.
A compromise solution would be to pledge to put it in the Conservatives' next manifesto to hold one by the end of the next parliament if they win. Not sure how I feel about it, but it would assuage some whilst avoiding plunging the country in to an immediate constitutional referendum quite so soon after Brexit.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
It has nothing to do with them liking Johnson. It has everything to do with them not liking being told they can't have a vote on their own futures.
No matter what people like HYUFD might say, it was very clear in the aftermath of the referendum that people felt that if the UK left the EU it would be in opposition to what the majority of Scots wanted and would count as a material change from the time of the first Independence vote. Unionist spouting 'once in a generation' will win no more votes than Cameron and his 'meaningful negotiations' did. Indeed that only served to annoy more people as they thought he was taking them for fools.
So the longer Johnson denies the Scots the rights to determine their own futures the more they will be to vote for independence when, as it inevitably must, the vote is finally held.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote
I'm not sure if Casino does, I was under the impression he respects democracy but would be disappointed if the Scots do vote for independence, which is not your position at all. That is the view I believe of most Tories, they want the union to survive but to do so by the ballot box not by force.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Is ‘BJ will not allow the Scots to have another referendum ‘cos they hate him and he knows he’ll lose’ going to be at the forefront of the justifications for not having a referendum?
Churchillian!
It's naked electoral calculation, something I'd hope an SNP fan would appreciate.
As a matter of fact, I don't think Boris would lose, but he would undoubtedly cost the campaign votes, and I would prefer Scottish voters to endorse the Union with genuine satisfaction, not through gritted teeth.
Lol, we mustn’t have a referendum while Scots have a pm imposed on them that they hate and despise, let’s wait till we can impose a pm towards whom they’re vaguely indifferent. Once we win we can get back to imposing pms that they hate and despise, trebles all round!
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
I can foresee a pattern...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
At least its a new line rather than everything bad is Brexit, everything good is because we haven't left yet.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Far from it, as Madrid has shown in Catalonia illegal referendums held by nationalist governments can be ignored.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
As we have said before, if you are using Spain as an example of how democracy should work then you have already lost the argument.
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Indeed and almost all of them live in Paris, France is even more centralised and elitist than we are
The savage hatred of "Paris" - meaning the elite - in France, is something to behold.
In rural France, British people are regarded as almost human, in comparison to "Parisians".
I have many friends in France having worked for a French company for 18 years prior to starting consulting. If anyone ever asked you whether you visited France much and you said yes I spend a lot of time in Paris the immediate response was 'Paris is not France'. The was the same response whether it was in Nantes, Reims or Marseille. They really, deeply loathed Parisians.
Yes - the strength of the reaction makes MalcomG sound like a Londonophile.
It's not just here and France. One of my wife's cousins and her family moved to the Maritimes. They were advised to say that they had moved from Ontario rather than Toronto otherwise people would assume that they were arrogant arseholes.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote
I'm not sure if Casino does, I was under the impression he respects democracy but would be disappointed if the Scots do vote for independence, which is not your position at all. That is the view I believe of most Tories, they want the union to survive but to do so by the ballot box not by force.
The Tory manifesto is clear as per the winning 2019 manifesto
'We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.'
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
I don't mean the argument. I mean the signs. As a driver they make it much harder to read
We have had years of "Welsh road signs make you crash your car" nonsense.
"I can't read it. It made me drive my car off the road. The Welsh road sign is the last thing I remember before waking up in a hospital bed" said a Mr ScottP. "I am now brain-dead and post innumerable rubbish on a blog".
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Far from it, as Madrid has shown in Catalonia illegal referendums held by nationalist governments can be ignored.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
As we have said before, if you are using Spain as an example of how democracy should work then you have already lost the argument.
The Tory Party's sister party is the PP in Spain and we will follow the example of our Spanish conservative cousins if needed as a last resort, thanks to the PP government actions in 2017 Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Indeed and almost all of them live in Paris, France is even more centralised and elitist than we are
The savage hatred of "Paris" - meaning the elite - in France, is something to behold.
In rural France, British people are regarded as almost human, in comparison to "Parisians".
I have many friends in France having worked for a French company for 18 years prior to starting consulting. If anyone ever asked you whether you visited France much and you said yes I spend a lot of time in Paris the immediate response was 'Paris is not France'. The was the same response whether it was in Nantes, Reims or Marseille. They really, deeply loathed Parisians.
Yes - the strength of the reaction makes MalcomG sound like a Londonophile.
It's not just here and France. One of my wife's cousins and her family moved to the Maritimes. They were advised to say that they had moved from Ontario rather than Toronto otherwise people would assume that they were arrogant arseholes.
Its the town mouse vs country mouse everywhere. I used to hear it said of Aucklanders when I lived in NZ.
"The most chilling finding from the Imperial College research on the new coronavirus variant is that the November lockdown in England, hard though it was for many people, would not have stopped the variant form of the virus from spreading."
I think the NHS need to drop their 1000 step procedure to volunteer to being a vaccine jabber....
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote
I'm not sure if Casino does, I was under the impression he respects democracy but would be disappointed if the Scots do vote for independence, which is not your position at all. That is the view I believe of most Tories, they want the union to survive but to do so by the ballot box not by force.
The Tory manifesto is clear as per the winning 2019 manifesto
'We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.'
If you do not like the party position, tough, you are not really a Tory anyway.
Its not the end of the conversation since the Tories didn't win the election in Scotland, we lost in Scotland.
Now Scotland will have its own general election and no doubt the Tories will put that into that election too - lets see if they do and if they win or lose at the election.
You may want to act like we won and can trample over anyone the Scots elect. Most sane Tories do not.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
I don't blame her one bit
I almost hope this is a desperate attempt to drive rates of hospitalisations down - that would be better than a cynical move to just bump numbers.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
But if the one dose regime of the Pfizer vaccine proves less effective than the trial data, what will they conclude? That two doses are needed for maximum protection? Or that the vaccine is less effective against the mutant variants that have developed since the trial?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote
I'm not sure if Casino does, I was under the impression he respects democracy but would be disappointed if the Scots do vote for independence, which is not your position at all. That is the view I believe of most Tories, they want the union to survive but to do so by the ballot box not by force.
I was also under the impression that Casino thought that BJ et al should carpe the diem, agree to a referendum as much on his terms as possible and make the positive case for the Union, rather than let it fester in a privy bucket for the next four years.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
I don't blame her one bit
I almost hope this is a desperate attempt to drive rates of hospitalisations down - that would be better than a cynical move to just bump numbers.
Of course its a desperate attempt to drive down hospitalisations, that's what they've said. Why would it be anything else?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Far from it, as Madrid has shown in Catalonia illegal referendums held by nationalist governments can be ignored.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
As we have said before, if you are using Spain as an example of how democracy should work then you have already lost the argument.
The Tory Party's sister party is the PP in Spain and we will follow the example of our Spanish conservative cousins if needed as a last resort, thanks to the PP government actions in 2017 Catalonia remains part of Spain.
You like Philip are not a Tory either
I have never claimed to be a Tory. Indeed I would suggest that it is because you are a Tory that you have a poor grip on the realities of democracy at times. And as I said, if you are using Spain as an example of how a democracy should behave you really have already lost the argument.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
I don't blame her one bit
I almost hope this is a desperate attempt to drive rates of hospitalisations down - that would be better than a cynical move to just bump numbers.
Of course its a desperate attempt to drive down hospitalisations, that's what they've said. Why would it be anything else?
Forgive me if I am cynical about politicians of all stripes
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote
I'm not sure if Casino does, I was under the impression he respects democracy but would be disappointed if the Scots do vote for independence, which is not your position at all. That is the view I believe of most Tories, they want the union to survive but to do so by the ballot box not by force.
I was also under the impression that Casino thought that BJ et al should carpe the diem, agree to a referendum as much on his terms as possible and make the positive case for the Union, rather than let it fester in a privy bucket for the next four years.
Because Casino is a respectable Conservative and Unionist who wants to save the union and not an ersatz Jackboot wearing back seat army general like HYUFD.
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Well of course. For years we have heard that everything bad is because of the EU, and anything good, like sewage free beaches, we would have done anyway.
This is the new reality. Everything crap will be because of Brexit, and the grass will look greener on the other side of the fence.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
I don't blame her one bit
I almost hope this is a desperate attempt to drive rates of hospitalisations down - that would be better than a cynical move to just bump numbers.
Of course its a desperate attempt to drive down hospitalisations, that's what they've said. Why would it be anything else?
Forgive me if I am cynical about politicians of all stripes
I get that, but the JCVI and 4 CMOs aren't politicians.
I will never understand why other English people would want to retain Scotland in the U.K. if the majority wanted to leave; or even prevent a referendum if that looked likely.
The United Kingdom only means something if people in Caithness accept their single vote means the same as the single vote of people in Leicester on national issues. If that concept has gone, then it’s gone. The Union is broken once people think of Scotland having X MPs, England Y, and Wales Z; instead of the U.K. having 650.
I continue to hold on to my proposal though that if Scotland gains independence then as penance it has to take NI with it.
30% a week not bad enough for you? Also note the drop in testing, which hides further cases.
We desperately need numbers to start falling by next weekend to show that tier 5 (i.e. tier 4 with schools closed) works. Otherwise, what's tier 6 going to be?
If the numbers don't start falling we'll have a dramatic fear-based response due to the media stories about patients denied treatment due to overwhelming numbers, mass graves, etc.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
But if the one dose regime of the Pfizer vaccine proves less effective than the trial data, what will they conclude? That two doses are needed for maximum protection? Or that the vaccine is less effective against the mutant variants that have developed since the trial?
There will be a group who have had 2 Pfizer vaccines for a comparison.
Coronavirus patients on NHS intensive care wards are already in 'competition' for ventilators to keep them alive as infections and hospital admissions caused by the disease surge in London, a doctor has warned.
Dr Megan Smith, from Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust in the capital, said medics are facing 'horrifying' decisions as they have to choose which patients get access to lifesaving treatment for Covid-19 and which don't.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
A Unionist respects the 2014 vote, does not appease Nationalists who would demand indyref2, then indyref3 then indyref4 at any point of their choice.
If Labour wish to allow indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since 2014 that would be their choice, hopefully Scots would again say No, if they said Yes however history would record it was under a Labour PM that the UK broke up.
What Philip Thompson thinks is irrelevant, if Scotland did go of course there would be near zero chance of a non Blairite Labour Party ever winning a rUK election again, certainly for any sustained period in power
HYUFD let's ignore for the moment whether anyone is pro or anti independence or pro or anti Brexit, but for the record I will put my bias on the record - pro remain, no strong feelings on independence.
Isn't it the case that a major argument for anti independence would be that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU if it got independence and the only way to ensure it maintained its EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union?
It is also true that Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU which would indicate that the argument being put forward was a strong one.
Whether intentional or just a consequence of events that argument proved to be completely invalid because we have left the EU. Surely nullifies the referendum immediately. The Scots were sold a complete lie (although probably not intended). They feel rightly cheated. Even a Brexiteer, pro union person surely can see that?
Eg nhs staff are “back of the queue” for the vaccine with a link to a story saying they are “no longer front of the queue”. I can see the argument for nhs staff having a very high priority but it would be better if she argued from facts rather than emotion
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino, Carlotta, MarqueeMark etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
I think now No Deal has been avoided the chances of an SNP majority in May are significantly reduced anyway especially given the SNP even refused to back the Deal but the position holds regardless
Here's the thing.
Imagine that the EU referendum was won 52:48 by Remain.
Over the following couple of years, the UK and the EU became increasingly at loggerheads. In the 2020 election, UKIP sweep the board in the UK, winning close to 50% of the vote and the vast majority of seats.
They promised a binding referendum on EU membership.
Should the Queen refuse to sign the Bill, on the basis that the referendum in 2016 had been 'once in a lifetime'?
No, of course not.
Ultimately, the voters are allowed to change their mind.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Far from it, as Madrid has shown in Catalonia illegal referendums held by nationalist governments can be ignored.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
As we have said before, if you are using Spain as an example of how democracy should work then you have already lost the argument.
The Tory Party's sister party is the PP in Spain and we will follow the example of our Spanish conservative cousins if needed as a last resort, thanks to the PP government actions in 2017 Catalonia remains part of Spain.
You like Philip are not a Tory either
I have never claimed to be a Tory. Indeed I would suggest that it is because you are a Tory that you have a poor grip on the realities of democracy at times. And as I said, if you are using Spain as an example of how a democracy should behave you really have already lost the argument.
Catalan nationalists held an illegal referendum in 2017, 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain and the Catalan nationalist government has not even been granted 1 legal independence referendum as the UK government granted the Scottish nationalist government a legal independence referendum in 2014 which Unionists won.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
But if the one dose regime of the Pfizer vaccine proves less effective than the trial data, what will they conclude? That two doses are needed for maximum protection? Or that the vaccine is less effective against the mutant variants that have developed since the trial?
There will be a group who have had 2 Pfizer vaccines for a comparison.
Yes. I'd forgotten. Some have had a 2nd dose after 21 days. Thanks.
Eg nhs staff are “back of the queue” for the vaccine with a link to a story saying they are “no longer front of the queue”. I can see the argument for nhs staff having a very high priority but it would be better if she argued from facts rather than emotion
There is a fair bit of people with an agenda popping up at the moment, spinning.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
A Unionist respects the 2014 vote, does not appease Nationalists who would demand indyref2, then indyref3 then indyref4 at any point of their choice.
If Labour wish to allow indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since 2014 that would be their choice, hopefully Scots would again say No, if they said Yes however history would record it was under a Labour PM that the UK broke up.
What Philip Thompson thinks is irrelevant, if Scotland did go of course there would be near zero chance of a non Blairite Labour Party ever winning a rUK election again, certainly for any sustained period in power
HYUFD let's ignore for the moment whether anyone is pro or anti independence or pro or anti Brexit, but for the record I will put my bias on the record - pro remain, no strong feelings on independence.
Isn't it the case that a major argument for anti independence would be that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU if it got independence and the only way to ensure it maintained its EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union?
It is also true that Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU which would indicate that the argument being put forward was a strong one.
Whether intentional or just a consequence of events that argument proved to be completely invalid because we have left the EU. Surely nullifies the referendum immediately. The Scots were sold a complete lie (although probably not intended). They feel rightly cheated. Even a Brexiteer, pro union person surely can see that?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote
I'm not sure if Casino does, I was under the impression he respects democracy but would be disappointed if the Scots do vote for independence, which is not your position at all. That is the view I believe of most Tories, they want the union to survive but to do so by the ballot box not by force.
The Tory manifesto is clear as per the winning 2019 manifesto
'We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.'
If you do not like the party position, tough, you are not really a Tory anyway.
Its not the end of the conversation since the Tories didn't win the election in Scotland, we lost in Scotland.
Now Scotland will have its own general election and no doubt the Tories will put that into that election too - lets see if they do and if they win or lose at the election.
You may want to act like we won and can trample over anyone the Scots elect. Most sane Tories do not.
2019 was a UK Tory manifesto, the Tories won a UK wide majority of 80 and regardless of what happens in Scotland in May Westminster remains supreme to Holyrood
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Far from it, as Madrid has shown in Catalonia illegal referendums held by nationalist governments can be ignored.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
As we have said before, if you are using Spain as an example of how democracy should work then you have already lost the argument.
The Tory Party's sister party is the PP in Spain and we will follow the example of our Spanish conservative cousins if needed as a last resort, thanks to the PP government actions in 2017 Catalonia remains part of Spain.
You like Philip are not a Tory either
"Vote Conservative and have your granny dragged out of the polling place by her hair"
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
A Unionist respects the 2014 vote, does not appease Nationalists who would demand indyref2, then indyref3 then indyref4 at any point of their choice.
If Labour wish to allow indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since 2014 that would be their choice, hopefully Scots would again say No, if they said Yes however history would record it was under a Labour PM that the UK broke up.
What Philip Thompson thinks is irrelevant, if Scotland did go of course there would be near zero chance of a non Blairite Labour Party ever winning a rUK election again, certainly for any sustained period in power
HYUFD let's ignore for the moment whether anyone is pro or anti independence or pro or anti Brexit, but for the record I will put my bias on the record - pro remain, no strong feelings on independence.
Isn't it the case that a major argument for anti independence would be that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU if it got independence and the only way to ensure it maintained its EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union?
It is also true that Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU which would indicate that the argument being put forward was a strong one.
Whether intentional or just a consequence of events that argument proved to be completely invalid because we have left the EU. Surely nullifies the referendum immediately. The Scots were sold a complete lie (although probably not intended). They feel rightly cheated. Even a Brexiteer, pro union person surely can see that?
Had the SNP got 60%+ of the vote consistently after the 2016 Leave vote given 62% of Scots voted Remain and had we now gone to No Deal Brexit maybe, as it is the SNP got just 45% last year post the Brexit vote ie no change at all from the 45% Yes vote in 2014 and No Deal Brexit has been avoided
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote
I'm not sure if Casino does, I was under the impression he respects democracy but would be disappointed if the Scots do vote for independence, which is not your position at all. That is the view I believe of most Tories, they want the union to survive but to do so by the ballot box not by force.
The Tory manifesto is clear as per the winning 2019 manifesto
'We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.'
If you do not like the party position, tough, you are not really a Tory anyway.
Its not the end of the conversation since the Tories didn't win the election in Scotland, we lost in Scotland.
Now Scotland will have its own general election and no doubt the Tories will put that into that election too - lets see if they do and if they win or lose at the election.
You may want to act like we won and can trample over anyone the Scots elect. Most sane Tories do not.
2019 was a UK Tory manifesto, the Tories won a UK wide majority of 80 and regardless of what happens in Scotland in May Westminster remains supreme to Holyrood
And Johnson the coward will go down in history as the leader that destroyed the Union.
Getting back in would be far harder than getting out, because it would require the agreement of the EU member states, most of whom would have no desire to see us return.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
I don't blame her one bit
I almost hope this is a desperate attempt to drive rates of hospitalisations down - that would be better than a cynical move to just bump numbers.
No doubt the government will be reporting 'partial vaccinations' (i,e. first dose only) and 'full vaccinations'.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
No they don't, Charles, Luckyguy, Casino, Carlotta, MarqueeMark etc all back my position that 2014 was a once in a generation vote as do some patriot Labour supporters like Justin.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
I think now No Deal has been avoided the chances of an SNP majority in May are significantly reduced anyway especially given the SNP even refused to back the Deal but the position holds regardless
Here's the thing.
Imagine that the EU referendum was won 52:48 by Remain.
Over the following couple of years, the UK and the EU became increasingly at loggerheads. In the 2020 election, UKIP sweep the board in the UK, winning close to 50% of the vote and the vast majority of seats.
They promised a binding referendum on EU membership.
Should the Queen refuse to sign the Bill, on the basis that the referendum in 2016 had been 'once in a lifetime'?
No, of course not.
Ultimately, the voters are allowed to change their mind.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
That will be, as happens pretty much every summer, the fault of the French lorry drivers.
Sky were desparate for there to be big queues today because of the new customs arrangements, and really aren’t happy that things are all moving smoothly at Dover.
Are they unhappy with with outcome of the lack of an exciting story?
Getting back in would be far harder than getting out, because it would require the agreement of the EU member states, most of whom would have no desire to see us return.
Riddle me this, if England isn’t a nation or a devolved administration, what is it?
A ceremonial country, without even its own Parliament like Scotland or Wales.
The UK is the only sovereign country in Britain and NI, England only exists in football and rugby fixtures (England's cricket team technically also includes Wales)
Riddle me this, if England isn’t a nation or a devolved administration, what is it?
A ceremonial country, without even its own Parliament like Scotland or Wales.
The UK is the only sovereign country in Britain and NI, England only exists in football and rugby fixtures (England's cricket team technically also includes Wales)
You should say all this on the doorsteps of the red wall. It'll go down a treat.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
No, this Tory Government is making the end of the union more likely with its arrogance. Your thinking is ridiculous short-termism.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Comments
This is why I prefer to lay a 2022 Sindy at 4.8 than back a no Sindy by 1st Jan 2025 at 2.1.
Ouch.
Churchillian!
As a matter of fact, I don't think Boris would lose, but he would undoubtedly cost the campaign votes, and I would prefer Scottish voters to endorse the Union with genuine satisfaction, not through gritted teeth.
"I can't read it. It made me drive my car off the road. The Welsh road sign is the last thing I remember before waking up in a hospital bed" said a Mr ScottP. "I am now brain-dead and post innumerable rubbish on a blog".
I must admit I assume we are reverting to them and I don't know that, but it would be logical.
So this is not an export. You are promising to bring the stuff back. Hence the customs people are particularly interested that you really are doing so hence the extra checks and those checks are more than just the items but questions like why? I got a bit of a grilling each time and every single time, not just occasionally. Friendly each time, but sitting in an office being asked questions and all I had were in the car were PCs, collapsible stands and demo equipment. Imagine if you are taking F1 stuff or concert stuff in several lorries. I can't imagine how F1 teams deal with broken cars, used tyres, etc, although I guess they will be practiced at it for non EU countries. Out of my comfort zone now re knowledge, but just pointing out these things are not as simple as 'it will be ok'.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
It will take some further decades for the economies and political systems to mature, particularly in countries with long histories of foreign domination or dictatorship. We should be rightly proud of our role in raising Southern and Eastern Europe from the poverty and despotism that has long been their curse.
Of course it is a little patchy, but parts of Eastern Europe are unrecognisable from 30 years ago, with a lifestyle as developed, or more so, than parts of the Original 9 countries.
Their economies are now growing strongly, and would have been a real asset to our exporters should we have Remained, particularly with our diaspora links. You might say "our job here is done", but I would argue that not we are not yet there, and that there needs to be more regional development across the continent, so Wales prospers as well as Bohemia, that Picardy and Sicily are as prosperous as Bavaria etc.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
I forgot what a comedian Hutton is.
Alabama is approaching 20%.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
(That being said, there are a lot of things we should take from the French. Their idea of allowing family tax allowances to stack is genius, and is a core reason why their TFR is so much better than... ooohhh... almost everywhere else.)
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
I think now No Deal has been avoided the chances of an SNP majority in May are significantly reduced anyway especially given the SNP even refused to back the Deal but the position holds regardless
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
I said it was much harder to read.
No matter what people like HYUFD might say, it was very clear in the aftermath of the referendum that people felt that if the UK left the EU it would be in opposition to what the majority of Scots wanted and would count as a material change from the time of the first Independence vote. Unionist spouting 'once in a generation' will win no more votes than Cameron and his 'meaningful negotiations' did. Indeed that only served to annoy more people as they thought he was taking them for fools.
So the longer Johnson denies the Scots the rights to determine their own futures the more they will be to vote for independence when, as it inevitably must, the vote is finally held.
Some people are never happy.
From case data
From hospitalisation data
'We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a
generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.'
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan
End of conversation.
If you do not like the party position, tough, you are not really a Tory anyway.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
You like Philip are not a Tory either
I think the NHS need to drop their 1000 step procedure to volunteer to being a vaccine jabber....
Now Scotland will have its own general election and no doubt the Tories will put that into that election too - lets see if they do and if they win or lose at the election.
You may want to act like we won and can trample over anyone the Scots elect. Most sane Tories do not.
I almost hope this is a desperate attempt to drive rates of hospitalisations down - that would be better than a cynical move to just bump numbers.
This is the new reality. Everything crap will be because of Brexit, and the grass will look greener on the other side of the fence.
The United Kingdom only means something if people in Caithness accept their single vote means the same as the single vote of people in Leicester on national issues. If that concept has gone, then it’s gone. The Union is broken once people think of Scotland having X MPs, England Y, and Wales Z; instead of the U.K. having 650.
I continue to hold on to my proposal though that if Scotland gains independence then as penance it has to take NI with it.
Dr Megan Smith, from Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust in the capital, said medics are facing 'horrifying' decisions as they have to choose which patients get access to lifesaving treatment for Covid-19 and which don't.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9104227/NHS-intensive-care-wards-busier-2019-despite-700-beds.html
I thought we had over produced ventilators in the Spring? Where are they?
Isn't it the case that a major argument for anti independence would be that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU if it got independence and the only way to ensure it maintained its EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union?
It is also true that Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU which would indicate that the argument being put forward was a strong one.
Whether intentional or just a consequence of events that argument proved to be completely invalid because we have left the EU. Surely nullifies the referendum immediately. The Scots were sold a complete lie (although probably not intended). They feel rightly cheated. Even a Brexiteer, pro union person surely can see that?
Eg nhs staff are “back of the queue” for the vaccine with a link to a story saying they are “no longer front of the queue”. I can see the argument for nhs staff having a very high priority but it would be better if she argued from facts rather than emotion
Imagine that the EU referendum was won 52:48 by Remain.
Over the following couple of years, the UK and the EU became increasingly at loggerheads. In the 2020 election, UKIP sweep the board in the UK, winning close to 50% of the vote and the vast majority of seats.
They promised a binding referendum on EU membership.
Should the Queen refuse to sign the Bill, on the basis that the referendum in 2016 had been 'once in a lifetime'?
No, of course not.
Ultimately, the voters are allowed to change their mind.
Guaranteed vote winner
https://twitter.com/gerryhassan/status/1345011748051554306?s=21
Riddle me this, if England isn’t a nation or a devolved administration, what is it?
Jesus...
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
The UK is the only sovereign country in Britain and NI, England only exists in football and rugby fixtures (England's cricket team technically also includes Wales)
As it stands I have to spent three nights in Glasgow in November.