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
What is your source for "once in a generation"?
The fool has no source
... you earlier replied to his comment where he gave the source.
The request was for a legally binding, or even legally persuasive, source...
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.
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
What is your source for "once in a generation"?
The fool has no source
... you earlier replied to his comment where he gave the source.
The request was for a legally binding, or even legally persuasive, source...
Was it? I don't see that in the thread. It was just a request for a source of the quote.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
Some of us did point out that Nadheem Zahawi was a terrible choice to be vaccines minister.
This stuff should have be organised weeks ago.
Nah, this isn't a ministerial level decision, it's about someone in PHE or the Cabinet Office getting their shit together and writing a warehousing process and data connector for the daily dashboard. The minister won't be getting anywhere near it. It's just the civil service being slow and unimaginative as usual.
Information is power.
If you just hand it out.....
See all the stuff after the Freedom Of Information stuff was passed - officials lamenting that they would have to allow the proles to know things.
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.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
If you use inability to get elected as a metric, plus preparedness to stand up for a bat-shit crazy cause at which the Establishment will point and laugh - surely, there is only person.
Step forward, your next Prime Minister, Jo Swinson....
Ha. Mais non. Our search goes on.
Think about it in terms of going up Barnier's staircase. There are four hurdles I can see;
The first is accepting that, in some "specific and limited" contexts, the ECJ is the appropriate Supreme Court.
The second is that Europe-wide trade deals, whilst they may not be a perfect fit, are more useful than the ones the UK can negotiate alone.
The third is that EEA membership is, overall, worth it. Freedom of movement and membership costs included.
The final one is that, if we're that integrated, we might as well take part in the politics.
It's going to be a slow process, and something of a relay. Unfortunately. Each step (for all I agree with them) might need different people.
Spot on. Forget Clive Lewis, the job's yours if you want it.
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 Americans I met in my 6,000 mile trip around the States last year (two years) weren’t complimentary about DC, either. Far from it.
In most countries, the rest of the country hates the capital. Talk to Peruvians about Lima.
The French vs Paris thing is really, really out there. Something like 11 out of 10 on the scale, with MalcomG vs London on about 7.....
Yes, I travel a good deal, and the UK is pretty mild on that scale.
Also on believing we're the best and the centre of the universe.
Talking of Scotland, any recommendations for a decent hotel in Glasgow?
As it stands I have to spent three nights in Glasgow in November.
Hotel Du Vin is a nice one
Carlton George if you want right in centre
Mercure Glasgow City in Ingram street in Merchant city is a standard chain hotel , but just off centre near George Square and good for lots of restaurants, bars , etc
The protests from local authority leaders came to a head with a letter to Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, from nine London authorities, including Islington, Lambeth and the City of London, asking for their primary schools to be closed and suggesting they were prepared to take legal action.
The action provoked an emergency Cabinet Office meeting on New Year’s Day, which signed off on the revision, adding the remaining 10 London education authorities to the government’s contingency areas.
But the decision leaves question marks hanging over the government’s decision-making, and stands as a further humiliating reverse for Williamson in his ill-fated tenure as Education Secretary.
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.
To me this has an air of panic about it. Either it's a bad decision or it's justified. If the latter it tells us just how grim things are looking in the short term.
I think it is grim I think it is justified
The graphs showing how the new variant takes off, while the old barely moves shows that getting R below 1 with the new variant may not be possible.
Think about that....
Yes. I must admit I am on the ultra bearish side from what I glean. The next few weeks will likely make the 1st wave look like a walk in the park.
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
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
I'm not arguing that Johnson changed his mind in 2019. The point I'm making is that, at the time, you were sure he would resign rather than send the letter. You were that sure that he would stick to his pledge. And he didn't resign did he?
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
H is very good on Tory thinking but he also misjudged Johnson on No Deal. He thought it probable that he would opt for it because a deal would cause him grief in the party and threaten his position.
Wrong, I said he would opt for it over extending the transition period not the Canada style FTA we now have
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
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
I'm not arguing that Johnson changed his mind in 2019. The point I'm making is that, at the time, you were sure he would resign rather than send the letter. You were that sure that he would stick to his pledge. And he didn't resign did he?
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
Wrong as Westminster is sovereign, so a PM with a Westminster majority of 80 can ignore Holyrood but a PM with no Westminster majority cannot ignore Westminster
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.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
And it's a fact that Brexit and it's adopted figurehead - Boris Johnson, has caused support for independence to go through the roof.
The truth hurts my friend.
Except it hasn't, 62% of Scots voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, 45% of Scots voted SNP in the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote and despite Boris Johnson being UK PM.
Zero change from the 45% of Scots who voted for independence in the 2014 referendum
What percentage of non SNP voting Scots support independence? Do you think it greater than zero?
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
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
What is your source for "once in a generation"?
The fool has no source
... you earlier replied to his comment where he gave the source.
that was not a source , laws are not made on the andrew marr show, surprised you would make such a cod of yourself even pointing to it.
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
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
I'm not arguing that Johnson changed his mind in 2019. The point I'm making is that, at the time, you were sure he would resign rather than send the letter. You were that sure that he would stick to his pledge. And he didn't resign did he?
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
H is very good on Tory thinking but he also misjudged Johnson on No Deal. He thought it probable that he would opt for it because a deal would cause him grief in the party and threaten his position.
Wrong, I said he would opt for it over extending the transition period not the Canada style FTA we now have
Not wrong. You assessed a 75% probability of No Deal at a time when it was clear that a deal of this nature was available. I remember the exchange word for word because it was part of the brutal self-audit I undertook to test my longstanding view that No Deal was a vanishingly unlikely outcome. You were a key input. In fact it was you who caused my brief (one hour) wobble before I emerged with original view intact.
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
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
I'm not arguing that Johnson changed his mind in 2019. The point I'm making is that, at the time, you were sure he would resign rather than send the letter. You were that sure that he would stick to his pledge. And he didn't resign did he?
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
H is very good on Tory thinking but he also misjudged Johnson on No Deal. He thought it probable that he would opt for it because a deal would cause him grief in the party and threaten his position.
Wrong, I said he would opt for it over extending the transition period not the Canada style FTA we now have
Not wrong. You assessed a 75% probability of No Deal at a time when it was pretty clear that a deal of this nature was available. I remember the exchange word for word because it was part of the brutal self-audit that I undertook to test my longstanding view that No Deal was a vanishingly unlikely outcome. You were a key input. In fact it was you that caused my brief (one hour) wobble before I emerged with original view intact.
So what, it was an acceptable Deal given the EU also compromised on fish and it was not clear they would when I said that and that ended free movement and allowed our own trade deals.
Extending the transition period would not have been
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
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
I'm not arguing that Johnson changed his mind in 2019. The point I'm making is that, at the time, you were sure he would resign rather than send the letter. You were that sure that he would stick to his pledge. And he didn't resign did he?
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
H is very good on Tory thinking but he also misjudged Johnson on No Deal. He thought it probable that he would opt for it because a deal would cause him grief in the party and threaten his position.
Wrong, I said he would opt for it over extending the transition period not the Canada style FTA we now have
Not wrong. You assessed a 75% probability of No Deal at a time when it was pretty clear that a deal of this nature was available. I remember the exchange word for word because it was part of the brutal self-audit that I undertook to test my longstanding view that No Deal was a vanishingly unlikely outcome. You were a key input. In fact it was you that caused my brief (one hour) wobble before I emerged with original view intact.
So what, it was an acceptable Deal given the EU also compromised on fish and it was not clear they would when I said that and that ended free movement and allowed our own trade deals.
Extending the transition period would not have been
H, you overestimated his willingness or desire to No Deal. This is clear. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Almost everybody in the country apart from me did.
LOL, someone spends years campaigning for a specific tax change that was banned under EU law, then gets upset because the day we leave the EU the government make the change she’s always wanted. No pleasing some people.
Apparently we were the strongest advocates in Europe so our departure means it’s less likely to happen.. that’s our fault I guess 🤷♂️
Comments
If you just hand it out.....
See all the stuff after the Freedom Of Information stuff was passed - officials lamenting that they would have to allow the proles to know things.
South and mid Wales - 30,000
North Wales - 4,600
And you wonder why we complain about Drakeford
Also on believing we're the best and the centre of the universe.
Mercure Glasgow City in Ingram street in Merchant city is a standard chain hotel , but just off centre near George Square and good for lots of restaurants, bars , etc
The action provoked an emergency Cabinet Office meeting on New Year’s Day, which signed off on the revision, adding the remaining 10 London education authorities to the government’s contingency areas.
But the decision leaves question marks hanging over the government’s decision-making, and stands as a further humiliating reverse for Williamson in his ill-fated tenure as Education Secretary.
What a talent!
NEW THREAD
Extending the transition period would not have been
And @TOPPING