Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
I don't know if either or both of you are joking, but this isn't [yet] the siege of Leningrad, is it? When the avocadoes disappear we'll know things are serious.
A lot of food is running low - especially luxury items - simply because so many people are so bored, and all the restaurants are shut, so they are now experimenting with elaborate home cooking. Especially over this festive period.
Same goes for the ingredients of mulled wine. I can't find star anise within a mile of my flat.
Luckily I have a small supply, my thermos is now full of a piping hot brew, and I am off to Richmond to drink it with a friend.
Later, PB
Not a reasonable excuse to leave home, sadly.
Yes it is. You are allowed to meet one other person, outdoors.
Not for any old reason, at least under the guidance.
Not your brightest day on PB
‘People can also exercise outdoors or visit some public outdoor places, such as parks, the countryside accessible to the public, public gardens or outdoor sports facilities. You can continue to do unlimited exercise alone, or in a public outdoor place with your household, support bubble, or with ONE OTHER PERSON if you maintain social distancing. You should follow the guidance on meeting others safely.’
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It's No. 11 Group not "11th Group" for fuck's sake.
Quite right too. We're not Americans.
On topic - what's your view of the UK launchpads? Presumably OK for throwing small sats into polar orbits? But not much else - IIRC that was the whole rationale for building Woomera in the middle of **** all down south in Oz.
Its not so much the grammar as that there aren’t, and never were, that many groups.
“After a week of this pounding, Churchill traveled to the headquarters of the 11th Fighter Group, the unit responsible for the defense of the air over London and southeastern England.“
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
No problem at either Waitrose or Morrisons for us this morning. Both fully stocked. Only trouble is, as is typical for this time of year, it was almost all imported as far as fruit goes. This is why I have a weekly order for English tomatoes from IoW instead.
Oh, but as an aside, the Waitrose at Newark is really shit. It has had ongoing problems with its freezers since the spring and still hasn't got them fixed.
Oh man, don't get me started on the "grown in a Dutch greenhouse" tomatoes to which Waitrose seem to be addicted. They're tasteless and awful (and were in stock this morning at the Finchley Road Waitrose). I don't understand why supermarkets are importing greenhouse grown tomatoes from Europe at all. In the summer we get amazing tomatoes from Spain, Portugal and Italy, I fully understand importing them during the summer but winter imports make no sense, one greenhouse tomato is basically the same as another.
You shop in the Finchley Road Waitrose? How many hours do you allow for parking?
The real way to enjoy tomatoes is to grow them yourself..
For sure. And the best way to shop is to walk, if possible.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It's No. 11 Group not "11th Group" for fuck's sake.
Quite right too. We're not Americans.
On topic - what's your view of the UK launchpads? Presumably OK for throwing small sats into polar orbits? But not much else - IIRC that was the whole rationale for building Woomera in the middle of **** all down south in Oz.
Its not so much the grammar as that there aren’t, and never were, that many groups.
I didn't realise that Dura_Ace had a new job as a bus driver.
Are you sure it wasn’t Gavin Williamson?
I've been thinking about him. Gavin Williamson. Something feels off about how he's handling himself. Any Cabinet Minster with an eye for his own reputation - as he surely does - would have taken crisp & clear action on schools.
"I know it's difficult, and a quality education for all our children is and remains my passion, but at this moment the pandemic is of such gravity that we must, we simply must, keep all schools closed for now. We will of course keep this under review in light of the data over the coming days and weeks and will plan for a reopening, with reasonable advance notice, as soon as it is safe to do so."
That was no-brainer and - more to the point - he would have looked good too. But he didn't do it. Instead he's fought a futile and messy rearguard action which has led to chaos and upset, a world of pain really, AND he looks bad.
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
I don't know if either or both of you are joking, but this isn't [yet] the siege of Leningrad, is it? When the avocadoes disappear we'll know things are serious.
A lot of food is running low - especially luxury items - simply because so many people are so bored, and all the restaurants are shut, so they are now experimenting with elaborate home cooking. Especially over this festive period.
Same goes for the ingredients of mulled wine. I can't find star anise within a mile of my flat.
Luckily I have a small supply, my thermos is now full of a piping hot brew, and I am off to Richmond to drink it with a friend.
Later, PB
Not a reasonable excuse to leave home, sadly.
Yes it is. You are allowed to meet one other person, outdoors.
Not for any old reason, at least under the guidance.
Not your brightest day on PB
‘People can also exercise outdoors or visit some public outdoor places, such as parks, the countryside accessible to the public, public gardens or outdoor sports facilities. You can continue to do unlimited exercise alone, or in a public outdoor place with your household, support bubble, or with ONE OTHER PERSON if you maintain social distancing. You should follow the guidance on meeting others safely.’
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
I don't know if either or both of you are joking, but this isn't [yet] the siege of Leningrad, is it? When the avocadoes disappear we'll know things are serious.
A lot of food is running low - especially luxury items - simply because so many people are so bored, and all the restaurants are shut, so they are now experimenting with elaborate home cooking. Especially over this festive period.
Same goes for the ingredients of mulled wine. I can't find star anise within a mile of my flat.
Luckily I have a small supply, my thermos is now full of a piping hot brew, and I am off to Richmond to drink it with a friend.
Later, PB
Not a reasonable excuse to leave home, sadly.
Yes it is. You are allowed to meet one other person, outdoors.
Not for any old reason, at least under the guidance.
Not your brightest day on PB
‘People can also exercise outdoors or visit some public outdoor places, such as parks, the countryside accessible to the public, public gardens or outdoor sports facilities. You can continue to do unlimited exercise alone, or in a public outdoor place with your household, support bubble, or with ONE OTHER PERSON if you maintain social distancing. You should follow the guidance on meeting others safely.’
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
I don't know if either or both of you are joking, but this isn't [yet] the siege of Leningrad, is it? When the avocadoes disappear we'll know things are serious.
A lot of food is running low - especially luxury items - simply because so many people are so bored, and all the restaurants are shut, so they are now experimenting with elaborate home cooking. Especially over this festive period.
Same goes for the ingredients of mulled wine. I can't find star anise within a mile of my flat.
Luckily I have a small supply, my thermos is now full of a piping hot brew, and I am off to Richmond to drink it with a friend.
Later, PB
Not a reasonable excuse to leave home, sadly.
Yes it is. You are allowed to meet one other person, outdoors.
Not for any old reason, at least under the guidance.
Not your brightest day on PB
‘People can also exercise outdoors or visit some public outdoor places, such as parks, the countryside accessible to the public, public gardens or outdoor sports facilities. You can continue to do unlimited exercise alone, or in a public outdoor place with your household, support bubble, or with ONE OTHER PERSON if you maintain social distancing. You should follow the guidance on meeting others safely.’
Hmm, it's an interesting argument that elbow-lifting counts as exercise.
(And, no doubt, also walking along, I hasten to add.)
I’m going to Richmond, as I said. It’s quite well known for its riverside walks and a very large park. Where I shall stroll with my friend, 2 metres apart. Facing forward. Necking my mulled Chianti and De Luze cognac, deliciously flavoured with star anise
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
I don't know if either or both of you are joking, but this isn't [yet] the siege of Leningrad, is it? When the avocadoes disappear we'll know things are serious.
A lot of food is running low - especially luxury items - simply because so many people are so bored, and all the restaurants are shut, so they are now experimenting with elaborate home cooking. Especially over this festive period.
Same goes for the ingredients of mulled wine. I can't find star anise within a mile of my flat.
Luckily I have a small supply, my thermos is now full of a piping hot brew, and I am off to Richmond to drink it with a friend.
Later, PB
Not a reasonable excuse to leave home, sadly.
Yes it is. You are allowed to meet one other person, outdoors.
Not for any old reason, at least under the guidance.
Not your brightest day on PB
‘People can also exercise outdoors or visit some public outdoor places, such as parks, the countryside accessible to the public, public gardens or outdoor sports facilities. You can continue to do unlimited exercise alone, or in a public outdoor place with your household, support bubble, or with ONE OTHER PERSON if you maintain social distancing. You should follow the guidance on meeting others safely.’
Hmm, it's an interesting argument that elbow-lifting counts as exercise.
(And, no doubt, also walking along, I hasten to add.)
I’m going to Richmond, as I said. It’s quite well known for its riverside walks and a very large park. Where I shall stroll with my friend, 2 metres apart. Facing forward. Necking my mulled Chianti and De Luze cognac, deliciously flavoured with star anise
Great view on Richmond Hill for that, or down where the boats are, and a nice day for it today.
I didn't realise that Dura_Ace had a new job as a bus driver.
Are you sure it wasn’t Gavin Williamson?
I've been thinking about him. Gavin Williamson. Something feels off about how he's handling himself. Any Cabinet Minster with an eye for his own reputation - as he surely does - would have taken crisp & clear action on schools.
"I know it's difficult, and a quality education for all our children is and remains my passion, but at this moment the pandemic is of such gravity that we must, we simply must, keep all schools closed for now. We will of course keep this under review in light of the data over the coming days and weeks and will plan for a reopening, with reasonable advance notice, as soon as it is safe to do so."
That was no-brainer and - more to the point - he would have looked good too. But he didn't do it. Instead he's fought a futile and messy rearguard action which has led to chaos and upset, a world of pain really, AND he looks bad.
My Conclusion? He has no agency on the big calls.
It's Johnson.
Maybe the arachnid has died? Loss of control. Might explain the glazed eye, the lost sharpness, the apparent need of a reviver.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
No problem at either Waitrose or Morrisons for us this morning. Both fully stocked. Only trouble is, as is typical for this time of year, it was almost all imported as far as fruit goes. This is why I have a weekly order for English tomatoes from IoW instead.
Oh, but as an aside, the Waitrose at Newark is really shit. It has had ongoing problems with its freezers since the spring and still hasn't got them fixed.
Oh man, don't get me started on the "grown in a Dutch greenhouse" tomatoes to which Waitrose seem to be addicted. They're tasteless and awful (and were in stock this morning at the Finchley Road Waitrose). I don't understand why supermarkets are importing greenhouse grown tomatoes from Europe at all. In the summer we get amazing tomatoes from Spain, Portugal and Italy, I fully understand importing them during the summer but winter imports make no sense, one greenhouse tomato is basically the same as another.
You shop in the Finchley Road Waitrose? How many hours do you allow for parking?
I can often be found there. Bloke in bobble hat stripping the extraneous bits from a broccoli before bagging it - moi.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
There is a tonne of research on this, because there are other vaccines for which you administer two doses.
Blair is correct, although any moderately intelligent politician would have realised this.
But, our political class as a whole cannot do arithmetic. And it seems the European political class can't, as well.
Blair is having a better pandemic than the PM, the FMs and the LotO.
It’s possible his intervention was unhelpful, though, so unwilling are people to listen to him these days. A self created Cassandra.
The somewhat messy AZN trials also seemed to bear out the greater efficacy of the longer gap between shots for their vaccine. Though as pointed out, it’s hard to do such stuff both quickly and well, so the data is less than conclusive.
My only issue was Blair made the suggestion himself, rather than saying there are experts who think we can save more lives by doing x, the government should be looking into alternative strategies.
Personally I don't understand why all the first jabs aren't going to frontline NHS staff. The 80+ olds who are getting the jab as we speak should be told to shield at home until the NHS has been done. The hospital crisis seems to be mainly about staffing with too many self isolating.
Maybe I have missed something here?
I strongly agree. It would be interesting to know how the priority list was arrived at.
I suspect it is because the people drawing up the vaccine priority list were largely doctors or public health officials, and they daren't put themselves at highest priority.
We could just imagine the media uproar if a bunch of doctors decided they are top priority.
In fact, almost all the media have had a truly disgraceful pandemic. I am becoming a fan of China's law against "picking quarrels and making trouble".
My understanding is that it was based on those most likely to die of the disease. If you are an 80- year old in a nursing home then catching the disease is far more of a risk than if you are a 40 year old nurse. Yes there is still a risk to the nurse but the calculation seems to be that the most important thing is stopping people dying.
Does that mean they aren’t confident that vaccine reduces transmission? I don’t think anyone is suggesting that frontline staff should be vaccinated for their own sake - though that’s a nice bonus - it’s more that we want to stop it spreading in care settings.
I must admit I started this whole pandemic with the belief that vaccines not only protected you but prevented transmission. But all the claims I have seen so far from the epidemiologists and talking heads who seem to know something about this indicate that that belief was false - at least to the extent that there is no guarantee that the vaccine prevents transmission. So yes, I think there is genuine doubt whether vaccinating front line staff will stop them transmitting the disease.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
I have been saying this for weeks but apparently it makes no difference. HYUFD still thinks we should emulate the Spanish and beat old ladies for daring to cast a vote.
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
No problem at either Waitrose or Morrisons for us this morning. Both fully stocked. Only trouble is, as is typical for this time of year, it was almost all imported as far as fruit goes. This is why I have a weekly order for English tomatoes from IoW instead.
Oh, but as an aside, the Waitrose at Newark is really shit. It has had ongoing problems with its freezers since the spring and still hasn't got them fixed.
Oh man, don't get me started on the "grown in a Dutch greenhouse" tomatoes to which Waitrose seem to be addicted. They're tasteless and awful (and were in stock this morning at the Finchley Road Waitrose). I don't understand why supermarkets are importing greenhouse grown tomatoes from Europe at all. In the summer we get amazing tomatoes from Spain, Portugal and Italy, I fully understand importing them during the summer but winter imports make no sense, one greenhouse tomato is basically the same as another.
You shop in the Finchley Road Waitrose? How many hours do you allow for parking?
I can often be found there. Bloke in bobble hat stripping the extraneous bits from a broccoli before bagging it - moi.
We should have the next PB meet there, although parking would be a problem.
I bought some trousers online a few days ago, that are distributed from a German warehouse. I've been told that DPD are refusing to import stuff into the UK at the moment so I have to wait. A first world problem outrage I must admit.
Neither Sainsbury's nor Tesco nor Waitrose have any aubergines in stock, if there's an avocado shortage I may just riot.
Can you have a riot by yourself or is that just called a tantrum?
Don't know, perhaps if there's a pineapple shortage, I'll see that as an absolute win for the greater good.
I mean I love pineapples but a pineapple shortage means no Hawaiian pizzas.
Nah our pineapples come from Costa Rica with whom we have signed a trade deal. But pineapples that go on pizzas are tinned and those come from the Dole mega production line in Kenya and the import process for those remain unchanged.
Honestly I can't wait until later this year when I can drink to excess and make my brain forget all of this useless knowledge.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Preserving a union through force means there's no union to preserve.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Neither Sainsbury's nor Tesco nor Waitrose have any aubergines in stock, if there's an avocado shortage I may just riot.
Can you have a riot by yourself or is that just called a tantrum?
Don't know, perhaps if there's a pineapple shortage, I'll see that as an absolute win for the greater good.
I mean I love pineapples but a pineapple shortage means no Hawaiian pizzas.
Nah our pineapples come from Costa Rica with whom we have signed a trade deal. But pineapples that go on pizzas are tinned and those come from the Dole mega production line in Kenya and the import process for those remain unchanged.
Honestly I can't wait until later this year when I can drink to excess and make my brain forget all of this useless knowledge.
I can relate, I became an expert on toilet roll production in the last 12 months.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
I have been saying this for weeks but apparently it makes no difference. HYUFD still thinks we should emulate the Spanish and beat old ladies for daring to cast a vote.
Also HYUFD argues that any independent indyref is pointless if the Unionists have boycotted it in the first place. Which makes one wonder why anyone should bother to get out the old cricket bat for the maiden aunts (to misquote Major, J.).
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
No problem at either Waitrose or Morrisons for us this morning. Both fully stocked. Only trouble is, as is typical for this time of year, it was almost all imported as far as fruit goes. This is why I have a weekly order for English tomatoes from IoW instead.
Oh, but as an aside, the Waitrose at Newark is really shit. It has had ongoing problems with its freezers since the spring and still hasn't got them fixed.
Oh man, don't get me started on the "grown in a Dutch greenhouse" tomatoes to which Waitrose seem to be addicted. They're tasteless and awful (and were in stock this morning at the Finchley Road Waitrose). I don't understand why supermarkets are importing greenhouse grown tomatoes from Europe at all. In the summer we get amazing tomatoes from Spain, Portugal and Italy, I fully understand importing them during the summer but winter imports make no sense, one greenhouse tomato is basically the same as another.
You shop in the Finchley Road Waitrose? How many hours do you allow for parking?
I can often be found there. Bloke in bobble hat stripping the extraneous bits from a broccoli before bagging it - moi.
We should have the next PB meet there, although parking would be a problem.
Can we not schedule the PB meet for Fortnum & Mason, Waitrose is a bit too plebby and chavvy for my tastes.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
What Rajoy did in 2017 was the greatest gift the Catalan separatists could ever have got. He turned them into martyrs. Since he lost power, Sanchez has played it much smarter and has succeeded in splitting the separatists by simply ignoring all provocations and seeking to engage. As a result, the left and right in Catalonia's nationalist bloc have now fallen out and support for independence is in decline. In fact, more Scots probably want independence now than Catalans do.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Have you thought of the impact in the rest of the UK if this all blows up. Ignoring NI which has its own issues on which country it would like to be a member of, the rest of us are mainly made up of people who are either pro-Union or who don't give a toss one way or another (I am in that latter category). A lot of the 'don't give a toss', might suddenly give a toss if Boris is heavy handed. I have do desire to see us putting the boot into Scotland against their will.
As an aside what are the chances of me getting an EU passport as the spouse of a Scot who left several decades ago if Scotland join the EU?
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us do recognise the issue even as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
You aren't a constituency/party official. He is. How do we know he doesn't represent party policy, or thinking?
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
There is a tonne of research on this, because there are other vaccines for which you administer two doses.
Blair is correct, although any moderately intelligent politician would have realised this.
But, our political class as a whole cannot do arithmetic. And it seems the European political class can't, as well.
Blair is having a better pandemic than the PM, the FMs and the LotO.
It’s possible his intervention was unhelpful, though, so unwilling are people to listen to him these days. A self created Cassandra.
The somewhat messy AZN trials also seemed to bear out the greater efficacy of the longer gap between shots for their vaccine. Though as pointed out, it’s hard to do such stuff both quickly and well, so the data is less than conclusive.
My only issue was Blair made the suggestion himself, rather than saying there are experts who think we can save more lives by doing x, the government should be looking into alternative strategies.
Personally I don't understand why all the first jabs aren't going to frontline NHS staff. The 80+ olds who are getting the jab as we speak should be told to shield at home until the NHS has been done. The hospital crisis seems to be mainly about staffing with too many self isolating.
Maybe I have missed something here?
I strongly agree. It would be interesting to know how the priority list was arrived at.
I suspect it is because the people drawing up the vaccine priority list were largely doctors or public health officials, and they daren't put themselves at highest priority.
We could just imagine the media uproar if a bunch of doctors decided they are top priority.
In fact, almost all the media have had a truly disgraceful pandemic. I am becoming a fan of China's law against "picking quarrels and making trouble".
My understanding is that it was based on those most likely to die of the disease. If you are an 80- year old in a nursing home then catching the disease is far more of a risk than if you are a 40 year old nurse. Yes there is still a risk to the nurse but the calculation seems to be that the most important thing is stopping people dying.
Does that mean they aren’t confident that vaccine reduces transmission? I don’t think anyone is suggesting that frontline staff should be vaccinated for their own sake - though that’s a nice bonus - it’s more that we want to stop it spreading in care settings.
I must admit I started this whole pandemic with the belief that vaccines not only protected you but prevented transmission. But all the claims I have seen so far from the epidemiologists and talking heads who seem to know something about this indicate that that belief was false - at least to the extent that there is no guarantee that the vaccine prevents transmission. So yes, I think there is genuine doubt whether vaccinating front line staff will stop them transmitting the disease.
How that all works biologically I have no idea.
The immune response generated by one vaccine dose isn't strong enough to repel the virus as we want it, there's some evidence that the Moderna two jab vaccine does but it's limited. There's a decent amount of evidence that the AZ 12 week gap two jab version does and it looks like that's going to be the main vaccine for us, but the 12 week gap obviously poses other problems.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
There is a tonne of research on this, because there are other vaccines for which you administer two doses.
Blair is correct, although any moderately intelligent politician would have realised this.
But, our political class as a whole cannot do arithmetic. And it seems the European political class can't, as well.
Blair is having a better pandemic than the PM, the FMs and the LotO.
It’s possible his intervention was unhelpful, though, so unwilling are people to listen to him these days. A self created Cassandra.
The somewhat messy AZN trials also seemed to bear out the greater efficacy of the longer gap between shots for their vaccine. Though as pointed out, it’s hard to do such stuff both quickly and well, so the data is less than conclusive.
My only issue was Blair made the suggestion himself, rather than saying there are experts who think we can save more lives by doing x, the government should be looking into alternative strategies.
Personally I don't understand why all the first jabs aren't going to frontline NHS staff. The 80+ olds who are getting the jab as we speak should be told to shield at home until the NHS has been done. The hospital crisis seems to be mainly about staffing with too many self isolating.
Maybe I have missed something here?
I strongly agree. It would be interesting to know how the priority list was arrived at.
I suspect it is because the people drawing up the vaccine priority list were largely doctors or public health officials, and they daren't put themselves at highest priority.
We could just imagine the media uproar if a bunch of doctors decided they are top priority.
In fact, almost all the media have had a truly disgraceful pandemic. I am becoming a fan of China's law against "picking quarrels and making trouble".
My understanding is that it was based on those most likely to die of the disease. If you are an 80- year old in a nursing home then catching the disease is far more of a risk than if you are a 40 year old nurse. Yes there is still a risk to the nurse but the calculation seems to be that the most important thing is stopping people dying.
Does that mean they aren’t confident that vaccine reduces transmission? I don’t think anyone is suggesting that frontline staff should be vaccinated for their own sake - though that’s a nice bonus - it’s more that we want to stop it spreading in care settings.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
But your first scenario is currently the case, and your second scenario most definitely isn’t - and isn’t going to be until well after the May elections.
Therefore, all talk of what happened in Spain really needs to be suspended, unless and until your second scenario is in play - which is definitely not before the Scottish Parliament elections.
(Unless you actually want to see a stonking SNP majority?)
Brilliant header, @Dura_Ace . Am I qualified to comment, as a long time since I once built a Hasegawa P38 ? And bodged it horribly.
With scale aviation modelling redemption is only as far away as the box of the next kit.
I am somehow unsurprised to discover that a large proportion of PBers have a weird, Aspergery, incel-esque obsession with making model airplanes.
Not all currently, evidently, but recalling their misspent youth glue-sniffing. In fairness, I think it's a generation thing from the 1950s-1970s - the older ones are passing away and the younger ones are or were computer games enthusiasts.
I had a phase. The one I remember doing - and it took ages - is the Ark Royal. Not a plane but a ship. A very BIG ship. The most vivid memory I have is not of the building process or the finished article but of getting glue on my fingertips. If you left this for a while - did not make the mistake of rushing things - it would dry up into a kind of crusty casing that you could then peel off in one go. An oddly pleasurably experience that I have yet to recreate in adult life.
I remember the glue experience and peeling it off my fingers.
When I was about 12, I designed my own aircraft about 18" long and constructed it with balsa wood and that glue, plus a semitransparent paper over the wings which you doped to make it contract and stiffen. I painted it in camouflague colours.
When I finally launched it from my bedroom window, it crashlanded on the path beneath and splintered. My father laughed. The things you suddenly remember!
That is one "tough love" dad you had there!
He was right though. It was funny and I did eventually laugh.
About five years later I came home late one night totally pissed and vomited out of the rear bedroom window onto his motorbike parked below. He didn't think that was funny. I tried hard not to laugh.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Preserving a union through force means there's no union to preserve.
Catalonia still remains part of Spain 4 years later
Brilliant header, @Dura_Ace . Am I qualified to comment, as a long time since I once built a Hasegawa P38 ? And bodged it horribly.
Did you forget to put a weight in the nose?
The Airfix generation speaking.
Just so. When I were a lad and an inveterate model builder (I pretty much had a Tamiya Panzerarmee), Airfix were seen as poor man's kit building. Checking the eponymous magazine on Tesco's shelves, they're right at the forefront now; I hope Liz Truss is pushing trade deals for this vital sector!
I too favoured Tamiya. Much fun had with the motorised PanzerKamfwagen II. You always remember your first.
In evidence that boys never grow up, my brother sent me this for Christmas.
Ha, I think the PzKpfw II was my first too.
Nice, straight lines on the splinter camo, masking tape or steady hand?
I remember my first Airfix kit was a Christmas present of a WW2 25 pounder gun. From the instructions, "the trunion base" became one of those by-words in our house for a thing that nobody really knows what it is or what it does.....
You should have played with Meccano - virtually every model I made had trunions.
Just been to Lidl to get our shopping. My God! The fruit and veg! East Germany in its heyday had nothing on this. Plenty of carrots, decent supply of broccoli and avocadoes, a few turnips and a few bags of apples and that literally is it. No salad items, no fruit of any kind except those apples, remarkably no potatoes or onions.
So popped into the Sainsburys Local next door that no-one goes to because the prices are 50% higher. A little better but even there most of the produce items are out of stock.
It was similar for me in Morrisons on New Year's Day but the items available were a bit different. Plenty of potatoes (but not Maris Piper) and plenty of onions but no carrots, parsnips or bagged salads. Same story in the Aldi nearby.
I don't know if either or both of you are joking, but this isn't [yet] the siege of Leningrad, is it? When the avocadoes disappear we'll know things are serious.
A lot of food is running low - especially luxury items - simply because so many people are so bored, and all the restaurants are shut, so they are now experimenting with elaborate home cooking. Especially over this festive period.
Same goes for the ingredients of mulled wine. I can't find star anise within a mile of my flat.
Luckily I have a small supply, my thermos is now full of a piping hot brew, and I am off to Richmond to drink it with a friend.
Later, PB
Not a reasonable excuse to leave home, sadly.
Yes it is. You are allowed to meet one other person, outdoors.
Not for any old reason, at least under the guidance.
Not your brightest day on PB
‘People can also exercise outdoors or visit some public outdoor places, such as parks, the countryside accessible to the public, public gardens or outdoor sports facilities. You can continue to do unlimited exercise alone, or in a public outdoor place with your household, support bubble, or with ONE OTHER PERSON if you maintain social distancing. You should follow the guidance on meeting others safely.’
Hmm, it's an interesting argument that elbow-lifting counts as exercise.
(And, no doubt, also walking along, I hasten to add.)
I’m going to Richmond, as I said. It’s quite well known for its riverside walks and a very large park. Where I shall stroll with my friend, 2 metres apart. Facing forward. Necking my mulled Chianti and De Luze cognac, deliciously flavoured with star anise
I'll look out for you. I suspect I might recognise you by the way you walk.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
I have been saying this for weeks but apparently it makes no difference. HYUFD still thinks we should emulate the Spanish and beat old ladies for daring to cast a vote.
Also HYUFD argues that any independent indyref is pointless if the Unionists have boycotted it in the first place. Which makes one wonder why anyone should bother to get out the old cricket bat for the maiden aunts (to misquote Major, J.).
Catalan nationalists also declared UDI when Madrid ignored their illegal referendum, the Spanish government then ordered the arrest of the Catalan nationalist government leaders.
I bought some trousers online a few days ago, that are distributed from a German warehouse. I've been told that DPD are refusing to import stuff into the UK at the moment so I have to wait. A first world problem outrage I must admit.
One just has to hope Farage is also having problems sourcing his favourite trousers.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
What Rajoy did in 2017 was the greatest gift the Catalan separatists could ever have got. He turned them into martyrs. Since he lost power, Sanchez has played it much smarter and has succeeded in splitting the separatists by simply ignoring all provocations and seeking to engage. As a result, the left and right in Catalonia's nationalist bloc have now fallen out and support for independence is in decline. In fact, more Scots probably want independence now than Catalans do.
Had Rajoy let the UDI declaration stand without challenge in 2017, Catalonia may now already be independent
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
On the euro you are confusing conditions required to join the euro with conditions required to join the EU. Scotland would have to sign up to join the euro eventually. So what? Ireland uses the euro and has no problems with it. Scotland wouldn't join the euro until it was ready (that is the whole purpose of the convergence criteria). On Schengen, I think the EU would grant Scotland an exemption, at least initially. Ireland is exempt and Scotland's only land border is with a non-Schengen, non-EU country. In any case, none of this has anything to do with the Copenhagen criteria. Scotland is more than ready for EU membership and would prosper mightily as a member. This is what English Nationalists are so afraid of.
You think that membership of the Euro and interest rates that were designed to assist Germany rather than dampen down the completely out of control housing boom (and subsequent crash) in Eire amounted to having "no problems with it". Well, its a view.
The alternative view is that Eire lost the ability to control its own economy resulting in a property boom of immense proportions and a subsequent crash that they are still recovering from. But hey, whatever.
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those who want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of the calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate who vote Tory will go along with the hard line, but it is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Have you thought of the impact in the rest of the UK if this all blows up. Ignoring NI which has its own issues on which country it would like to be a member of, the rest of us are mainly made up of people who are either pro-Union or who don't give a toss one way or another (I am in that latter category). A lot of the 'don't give a toss', might suddenly give a toss if Boris is heavy handed. I have do desire to see us putting the boot into Scotland against their will.
As an aside what are the chances of me getting an EU passport as the spouse of a Scot who left several decades ago if Scotland join the EU?
You may but as I believe you did not vote Tory last year and Boris has a Tory majority of 80 what you think is irrelevant until at least 2024 and the next general election
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
I have been saying this for weeks but apparently it makes no difference. HYUFD still thinks we should emulate the Spanish and beat old ladies for daring to cast a vote.
Also HYUFD argues that any independent indyref is pointless if the Unionists have boycotted it in the first place. Which makes one wonder why anyone should bother to get out the old cricket bat for the maiden aunts (to misquote Major, J.).
Catalan nationalists also declared UDI when Madrid ignored their illegal referendum, the Spanish government then ordered the arrest of the Catalan nationalist government leaders.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
But your first scenario is currently the case, and your second scenario most definitely isn’t - and isn’t going to be until well after the May elections.
Therefore, all talk of what happened in Spain really needs to be suspended, unless and until your second scenario is in play - which is definitely not before the Scottish Parliament elections.
(Unless you actually want to see a stonking SNP majority?)
I don't want an SNP majority obviously and hopefully with the Brexit Deal that will be avoided but given even you are now willing to agree with me that a Rajoy style response might be needed if the second scenario emerged and SNP hardliners toppled Sturgeon after an SNP majority it remains the elephant in the room
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those that want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of that calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate that vote Tory will go along with that hard line, but that is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
@HYUFD doesn't care about the union, he only cares about making sure it's Labour who ends it. That much is clear.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us do recognise the issue even as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
You aren't a constituency/party official. He is. How do we know he doesn't represent party policy, or thinking?
While Boris has said no at present, and I expect him to repeat it later this year, real politics will takeover and the matter will have to be addressed in a sensible manner
Brilliant header, @Dura_Ace . Am I qualified to comment, as a long time since I once built a Hasegawa P38 ? And bodged it horribly.
With scale aviation modelling redemption is only as far away as the box of the next kit.
I am somehow unsurprised to discover that a large proportion of PBers have a weird, Aspergery, incel-esque obsession with making model airplanes.
Not all currently, evidently, but recalling their misspent youth glue-sniffing. In fairness, I think it's a generation thing from the 1950s-1970s - the older ones are passing away and the younger ones are or were computer games enthusiasts.
I had a phase. The one I remember doing - and it took ages - is the Ark Royal. Not a plane but a ship. A very BIG ship. The most vivid memory I have is not of the building process or the finished article but of getting glue on my fingertips. If you left this for a while - did not make the mistake of rushing things - it would dry up into a kind of crusty casing that you could then peel off in one go. An oddly pleasurably experience that I have yet to recreate in adult life.
I remember the glue experience and peeling it off my fingers.
When I was about 12, I designed my own aircraft about 18" long and constructed it with balsa wood and that glue, plus a semitransparent paper over the wings which you doped to make it contract and stiffen. I painted it in camouflague colours.
When I finally launched it from my bedroom window, it crashlanded on the path beneath and splintered. My father laughed. The things you suddenly remember!
That is one "tough love" dad you had there!
He was right though. It was funny and I did eventually laugh.
About five years later I came home late one night totally pissed and vomited out of the rear bedroom window onto his motorbike parked below. He didn't think that was funny. I tried hard not to laugh.
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those who want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of the calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate who vote Tory will go along with the hard line, but it is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
Only 40% of Scots want indyref2 in the next 2 years ie the SNP hardcore, I suspect the remaining 60% would shrug their shoulders
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those who want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of the calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate who vote Tory will go along with the hard line, but it is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
Only 40% of Scots want indyref2 in the next 2 years ie the SNP hardcore, I suspect the remaining 60% would shrug their shoulders
And yet more than 50% of Sots currently want Independence. So what's your plan to reverse that other than military crackdowns?
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those that want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of that calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate that vote Tory will go along with that hard line, but that is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
@HYUFD doesn't care about the union, he only cares about making sure it's Labour who ends it. That much is clear.
No I do, unlike you I respect the 2014 No vote which was once in a generation.
If Labour form a government and offer indyref2 after 2024 with devomax etc that is up to them, we Tories will not under any circumstances allow a legal indyref2 while in power
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
But your first scenario is currently the case, and your second scenario most definitely isn’t - and isn’t going to be until well after the May elections.
Therefore, all talk of what happened in Spain really needs to be suspended, unless and until your second scenario is in play - which is definitely not before the Scottish Parliament elections.
(Unless you actually want to see a stonking SNP majority?)
I don't want an SNP majority obviously and hopefully with the Brexit Deal that will be avoided but given even you are now willing to agree with me that a Rajoy style response might be needed if the second scenario emerged and SNP hardliners toppled Sturgeon after an SNP majority it remains the elephant in the room
I don’t think the Rajoy approach is ever justified.
But if I did, I’d still shut up about it until after the Scottish Parliament elections, in five months’ time.
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those that want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of that calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate that vote Tory will go along with that hard line, but that is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
@HYUFD doesn't care about the union, he only cares about making sure it's Labour who ends it. That much is clear.
No I do, unlike you I respect the 2014 No vote which was once in a generation.
If Labour form a government and offer indyref2 after 2024 with devomax etc that is up to them, we Tories will not under any circumstances allow a legal indyref2 while in power
No, you don't. If you cared about the union you'd be supporting steps to boost support for it. You've instead made it abundantly clear you only care about it not happening under your watch and are not interested in actually making sure that a majority of Scots support the union.
Can I say I give @HYUFD credit for reporting what he thinks is the case, rather than necessarily what he thinks should be the case (although he might think that too)? It seems to me that @HYUFD has pretty good insight into the way important parts of the Conservative Party think, which I find interesting, as someone who has none of that insight.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those who want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of the calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate who vote Tory will go along with the hard line, but it is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
Only 40% of Scots want indyref2 in the next 2 years ie the SNP hardcore, I suspect the remaining 60% would shrug their shoulders
And yet more than 50% of Sots currently want Independence. So what's your plan to reverse that other than military crackdowns?
Even more reason not to grant indyref2, no point if it risks a Yes vote.
If Boris decided to follow Starmer and allow Holyrood devomax I would have no problem with that but that still does not change the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote and that must be respected
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
But your first scenario is currently the case, and your second scenario most definitely isn’t - and isn’t going to be until well after the May elections.
Therefore, all talk of what happened in Spain really needs to be suspended, unless and until your second scenario is in play - which is definitely not before the Scottish Parliament elections.
(Unless you actually want to see a stonking SNP majority?)
I don't want an SNP majority obviously and hopefully with the Brexit Deal that will be avoided but given even you are now willing to agree with me that a Rajoy style response might be needed if the second scenario emerged and SNP hardliners toppled Sturgeon after an SNP majority it remains the elephant in the room
Don't think the Deal will be enough to swing the election. It's too Thin to be a gamechanger.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those who want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of the calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate who vote Tory will go along with the hard line, but it is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
Only 40% of Scots want indyref2 in the next 2 years ie the SNP hardcore, I suspect the remaining 60% would shrug their shoulders
You vote on the question on the ballot paper. It may not be a big issue for you or you may object to way the issue is being framed, but that's not your choice. As with Brexit.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
But your first scenario is currently the case, and your second scenario most definitely isn’t - and isn’t going to be until well after the May elections.
Therefore, all talk of what happened in Spain really needs to be suspended, unless and until your second scenario is in play - which is definitely not before the Scottish Parliament elections.
(Unless you actually want to see a stonking SNP majority?)
I don't want an SNP majority obviously and hopefully with the Brexit Deal that will be avoided but given even you are now willing to agree with me that a Rajoy style response might be needed if the second scenario emerged and SNP hardliners toppled Sturgeon after an SNP majority it remains the elephant in the room
Don't think the Deal will be enough to swing the election. It's too Thin to be a gamechanger.
We wait the next polls and particularly the next Scottish polls to see if it has made a difference, I expect it will have cut the SNP lead at least
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those who want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of the calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate who vote Tory will go along with the hard line, but it is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
Only 40% of Scots want indyref2 in the next 2 years ie the SNP hardcore, I suspect the remaining 60% would shrug their shoulders
And yet more than 50% of Sots currently want Independence. So what's your plan to reverse that other than military crackdowns?
Even more reason not to grant indyref2, no point if it risks a Yes vote.
If Boris decided to follow Starmer and allow Holyrood devomax I would have no problem with that but that still does not change the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote and that must be respected
So your argument is that you recognise that currently a majority of Scots no longer want to stay in the union but you don't care and are not interested in reversing that trend?
As a unionist I am anguished and appalled.
No unionist should be afraid of a referendum. If you are afraid of a referendum then that's its own problem.
Can I say I give @HYUFD credit for reporting what he thinks is the case, rather than necessarily what he thinks should be the case (although he might think that too)? It seems to me that @HYUFD has pretty good insight into the way important parts of the Conservative Party think, which I find interesting, as someone who has none of that insight.
It would be interesting to see the army ordered in to arrest the SNP leadership.
It wouldn't be surprising to see a refusal, if that were to happen.
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those that want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of that calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate that vote Tory will go along with that hard line, but that is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
@HYUFD doesn't care about the union, he only cares about making sure it's Labour who ends it. That much is clear.
No I do, unlike you I respect the 2014 No vote which was once in a generation.
If Labour form a government and offer indyref2 after 2024 with devomax etc that is up to them, we Tories will not under any circumstances allow a legal indyref2 while in power
Then you and the government are risking the future existence of the Union in a way that can only be described as reckless.
Did you or they learn nothing from Brexit? The majority for that was built on the foundations of broken promises and refused votes when those who thought they knew better imposed things on people against their will. It would be madness to do the same in Scotland. This is a serious matter. My nationality and that of my family are at stake. It is not something to play silly games with.
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
I did not actually say 2, I agree with Boris this morning that a second referendum in about 2055 would be allowed ie a 41 year gap as between the 1975 EEC referendum and the 2016 EU referendum
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Have you thought of the impact in the rest of the UK if this all blows up. Ignoring NI which has its own issues on which country it would like to be a member of, the rest of us are mainly made up of people who are either pro-Union or who don't give a toss one way or another (I am in that latter category). A lot of the 'don't give a toss', might suddenly give a toss if Boris is heavy handed. I have do desire to see us putting the boot into Scotland against their will.
As an aside what are the chances of me getting an EU passport as the spouse of a Scot who left several decades ago if Scotland join the EU?
You may but as I believe you did not vote Tory last year and Boris has a Tory majority of 80 what you think is irrelevant until at least 2024 and the next general election
Your right I didn't, but I wasn't talking about me was I? I was talking about everyone who currently is in the category of not having a view on Scotland and will be a who lot of various people. What is more, unlike you, my entire life does not revolve around winning elections and there are a lot more important things in life between now and 2024 than the Tories winning the next election; there really is.
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
I did not actually say 2, I agree with Boris this morning that a second referendum in about 2055 would be allowed ie a 41 year gap as between the 1975 EEC referendum and the 2016 EU referendum
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
The SNP will win an outright majority in Holyrood in May on a manifesto of a new referendum in this parliament.
A motion for a new referendum will carry easily at Holyrood.
Boris Johnson will outright reject another referendum
Unionist ranks in Scotland are in a minority and deeply split
Stalemate and massive constitutional issue
This much is almost certain. What happens next is far from clear.
If the PM has any sense, he’ll put point 3 to a free vote in Parliament, rather than try make the decision himself.
The problem for those that want the Union to prevail is that Johnson's own interest is served by taking a hard line on the constitution. Discomforting Labour is part of that calculation. The 20% or so of the Scottish electorate that vote Tory will go along with that hard line, but that is not the consensus building approach needed to win on a single issue. As many Unionists will reject that hard line and also reject Johnson's vision of the Union that allows for no consent, partnership or consideration of the Scottish interest. Unionists are already in a minority and this approach seems guaranteed to peel off half of those that still are.
@HYUFD doesn't care about the union, he only cares about making sure it's Labour who ends it. That much is clear.
No I do, unlike you I respect the 2014 No vote which was once in a generation.
If Labour form a government and offer indyref2 after 2024 with devomax etc that is up to them, we Tories will not under any circumstances allow a legal indyref2 while in power
Then you and the government are risking the future existence of the Union in a way that can only be described as reckless.
Did you or they learn nothing from Brexit? The majority for that was built on the foundations of broken promises and refused votes when those who thought they knew better imposed things on people against their will. It would be madness to do the same in Scotland. This is a serious matter. My nationality and that of my family are at stake. It is not something to play silly games with.
Well if you are stupid enough to allow an indyref2 just 7 years after indyref1 with Yes ahead in the polls you will get Scottish independence and the end of the UK and deserve it I am afraid
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
Unionist who recognise it isn't any of our business what the Scots decide - that it is up to them. Westminster can get ahead of this and start making some positive cases for the union alongside devomax or they can do a @HYUFD and simply bury their heads in the sand.
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
I did not actually say 2, I agree with Boris this morning that a second referendum in about 2055 would be allowed ie a 41 year gap as between the 1975 EEC referendum and the 2016 EU referendum
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
Again you are missing the point being made.
How are you going react as the Tory candidate when stuff is printing saying you proposed nuking Madrid or send tanks to Edinburgh. Especially when taken out of context it will make you look like a loon. We know you aren't, but Joe Blogs isn't going to.
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
When posts of the Tory candidate were uncovered saying people on benefits should be put down, she lost.
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
I did not actually say 2, I agree with Boris this morning that a second referendum in about 2055 would be allowed ie a 41 year gap as between the 1975 EEC referendum and the 2016 EU referendum
But you don’t say it like that.
You say that we will campaign against a referendum, but if the Scottish Parliament votes for one then of course the U.K. Parliament will have to consider it.
You then have a vote in Parliament, which gets voted down 550-80 or thereabouts, and can park the issue for a while.
That’s completely truthful, but also polite a process-driven, rather than needlessly antagonistic.
Appeals to his English nationalist base with assertive nationalism
Sets up a dividing line for the 2024 election
I don't think it does though. Most of the Brexit coalition, for example, couldn't give two shits about whether Scotland is part of the UK or not. It certainly isn't anywhere near the top of their priority list. A vast majority of them would consider themselves "English" anyway.
I gave up a few years ago on hopes that Scotland might stay in the Union. It's very sad, and I'm sure that my Grandfather (half-Scottish) would be deeply unhappy as he loved the order of the Empire and latterly the Commonwealth, but most particularly the Union.
However the Scottish politicians (and probably the Scottish people) have simply made up their minds not to remain. It is a mild collective insanity in that they're treated really rather well within the Union, but they think otherwise and will thus have their way.
I can't see that they'll ever agree terms with the EU though.
I noticed earlier that MalcolmG posted that they'd have no debt and no deficit. Unless they reduce themselves to a future (like Malcolm) of one-sprout supermarket orders this clearly won't be true.
Query: why hasn't Scottish Labour started to bounce back?
The SNP has been in power for a while, so I'd expect fatigue to set in among the electorate.
The Conservatives have the twin problems of having lost a charismatic leader in Scotland and having King of the Arseheads in Westminster.
The Lib Dems aren't really anywhere, are they?
So... was Corbyn kryptonite there too? How's Starmer viewed?
Starmer I believe has a net positive rating in Scotland, Ross is viewed more favourably than Boris, Leonard has an abysmal rating north of the border and SLab have still not toppled him
As someone who believes the UK is better off preserving the Union but whose principles are neo-libertarian with maximalist subsidiarity (and hence who supported Brexit), I was appalled at the Spanish government's response to the Catalan crisis and I'd be vehemently opposed to its application in the Scottish independence context.
As civilized people, we have to be able to respect the will of the people, even when that will is not what we think is best. If I supported Brexit, I have to support whatever the Scottish people want re independence, even though I'd greatly regret their departure from the UK.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
Where have I said now
I do not expect indyref2 before late 2022 or even 2023 not least because a majority across the HOC would need to agree to one and that needs both main parties approval or at the very least a successful free vote. It then has to pass the HOL
Of course I want Boris or his successor to promote investment into Scotland including the building of Royal Navy ships, also freeports and to join TCPA to further expand export opportunities for all the UK
HMG has to demonstrate the value of the union and not threaten them with military intervention as HYUFD seems to want
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
5. If your constituency voted Tory and has job losses due to Brexit, the voters preferred Brexit over employment. 6. If your constituency didn't vote Tory and has difficulties, that isn't the Tories' problem.
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
Again you are missing the point being made.
How are you going react as the Tory candidate when stuff is printing saying you proposed nuking Madrid or send tanks to Edinburgh. Especially when taken out of context it will make you look like a loon. We know you aren't, but Joe Blogs isn't going to.
If you check my posts I never once said nuke Madrid, that was LadyG, I merely pointed out the necessary measures that would be needed to defend Gibraltar in the event of a hypothetical, even if unlikely Spanish invasion, nothing unTory there.
I also have not once said send tanks to Edinburgh, merely not allow indyref2 for a generation
Comments
‘People can also exercise outdoors or visit some public outdoor places, such as parks, the countryside accessible to the public, public gardens or outdoor sports facilities. You can continue to do unlimited exercise alone, or in a public outdoor place with your household, support bubble, or with ONE OTHER PERSON if you maintain social distancing. You should follow the guidance on meeting others safely.’
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tier-4-stay-at-home
And the best way to shop is to walk, if possible.
"I know it's difficult, and a quality education for all our children is and remains my passion, but at this moment the pandemic is of such gravity that we must, we simply must, keep all schools closed for now. We will of course keep this under review in light of the data over the coming days and weeks and will plan for a reopening, with reasonable advance notice, as soon as it is safe to do so."
That was no-brainer and - more to the point - he would have looked good too. But he didn't do it. Instead he's fought a futile and messy rearguard action which has led to chaos and upset, a world of pain really, AND he looks bad.
My Conclusion? He has no agency on the big calls.
It's Johnson.
(And, no doubt, also walking along, I hasten to add.)
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
I mean I love pineapples but a pineapple shortage means no Hawaiian pizzas.
How that all works biologically I have no idea.
Honestly I can't wait until later this year when I can drink to excess and make my brain forget all of this useless knowledge.
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
As an aside what are the chances of me getting an EU passport as the spouse of a Scot who left several decades ago if Scotland join the EU?
childrensex arse tycoons?Best story of the year so far
Therefore, all talk of what happened in Spain really needs to be suspended, unless and until your second scenario is in play - which is definitely not before the Scottish Parliament elections.
(Unless you actually want to see a stonking SNP majority?)
About five years later I came home late one night totally pissed and vomited out of the rear bedroom window onto his motorbike parked below. He didn't think that was funny. I tried hard not to laugh.
Indeed, possibly supermarkets may want to substitute for other pizza toppings that are in shortage...
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
The alternative view is that Eire lost the ability to control its own economy resulting in a property boom of immense proportions and a subsequent crash that they are still recovering from. But hey, whatever.
If Labour form a government and offer indyref2 after 2024 with devomax etc that is up to them, we Tories will not under any circumstances allow a legal indyref2 while in power
But if I did, I’d still shut up about it until after the Scottish Parliament elections, in five months’ time.
Says it all really.
If Boris decided to follow Starmer and allow Holyrood devomax I would have no problem with that but that still does not change the fact 2014 was a once in a generation vote and that must be respected
Not least for your own self-interest.
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
As a unionist I am anguished and appalled.
No unionist should be afraid of a referendum. If you are afraid of a referendum then that's its own problem.
It wouldn't be surprising to see a refusal, if that were to happen.
Did you or they learn nothing from Brexit? The majority for that was built on the foundations of broken promises and refused votes when those who thought they knew better imposed things on people against their will. It would be madness to do the same in Scotland. This is a serious matter. My nationality and that of my family are at stake. It is not something to play silly games with.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
1. No won the referendum
2. There will be no other referendum
3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission
4. Vote Tory
- Creates division in Labour ranks: do they support Johnson in his irredentist project, sit it out or decide independence is OK
- Appeals to his English nationalist base with assertive nationalism
- Sets up a dividing line for the 2024 election
Hard line is a No Brainer for Johnson, I think.How are you going react as the Tory candidate when stuff is printing saying you proposed nuking Madrid or send tanks to Edinburgh. Especially when taken out of context it will make you look like a loon. We know you aren't, but Joe Blogs isn't going to.
Query: why hasn't Scottish Labour started to bounce back?
The SNP has been in power for a while, so I'd expect fatigue to set in among the electorate.
The Conservatives have the twin problems of having lost a charismatic leader in Scotland and having King of the Arseheads in Westminster.
The Lib Dems aren't really anywhere, are they?
So... was Corbyn kryptonite there too? How's Starmer viewed?
Your posts are falling into that category.
You say that we will campaign against a referendum, but if the Scottish Parliament votes for one then of course the U.K. Parliament will have to consider it.
You then have a vote in Parliament, which gets voted down 550-80 or thereabouts, and can park the issue for a while.
That’s completely truthful, but also polite a process-driven, rather than needlessly antagonistic.
However the Scottish politicians (and probably the Scottish people) have simply made up their minds not to remain. It is a mild collective insanity in that they're treated really rather well within the Union, but they think otherwise and will thus have their way.
I can't see that they'll ever agree terms with the EU though.
I noticed earlier that MalcolmG posted that they'd have no debt and no deficit. Unless they reduce themselves to a future (like Malcolm) of one-sprout supermarket orders this clearly won't be true.
As civilized people, we have to be able to respect the will of the people, even when that will is not what we think is best. If I supported Brexit, I have to support whatever the Scottish people want re independence, even though I'd greatly regret their departure from the UK.
I do not expect indyref2 before late 2022 or even 2023 not least because a majority across the HOC would need to agree to one and that needs both main parties approval or at the very least a successful free vote. It then has to pass the HOL
Of course I want Boris or his successor to promote investment into Scotland including the building of Royal Navy ships, also freeports and to join TCPA to further expand export opportunities for all the UK
HMG has to demonstrate the value of the union and not threaten them with military intervention as HYUFD seems to want
6. If your constituency didn't vote Tory and has difficulties, that isn't the Tories' problem.
I also have not once said send tanks to Edinburgh, merely not allow indyref2 for a generation