The voters may say that now but Scottish indie has the massive issue of currency and the £.
That was covered ad nauseam in the last referendum so the vast majority of people who are saying they want independence come what may know what the consequences are - and as with Brexit seem willing to make the sacrifices required.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
Yes and given last 19 polls have had a range from 52-59 for Independence it is a big bit misleading into the bargain.
That is a bit of a better point, as 52 appears to be on the low end, bit I still read the point as saying if its 52 now theres a chance to prevent it, not that it's not permissible if any vote is only 52.
Either I've misread it or people are leaping too quickly on what they think it said rather than said.
I mean it said confidence about going down the indy route, surely that was talking confidence the 52 will bear out in a vote, not a denial of 52 being sufficient for a vote outcome?
I have been wondering why all these mainland UK companies who have, often reluctantly, started setting up satellite offices in EU or employing EU proxies to handle some of their sales, aren't thinking about setting up in NI?
We are setting up a new office in the EU. Do you guys want to move to Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, or Belfast...
I've been to the first two. But not the second two. Personally I would rather live in Amsterdam than Paris.
Yes...been to all of them, and would rank them Amsterdam/Berlin/Paris/Belfast. Belfast is definitely the one that feels most like a foreign country, though quite a grand one with a lot of fine old buildings for a relatively small city. Amsterdam feels like a pleasant version of home.
The best new year's eve I've ever had was in Amsterdam.
I note Alistair has completely and deliberately ignored the key finding from Northern Ireland from that poll that Northern Irish voters by a margin of 47% to 42% oppose a United Ireland.
Obviously cannot have anything going against the narrative diehard Remainers have that Brexit dooms the Union can we!!
I note Alistair has completely and deliberately ignored the key finding from Northern Ireland from that poll that Northern Irish voters by a margin of 47% to 42% oppose a United Ireland.
Obviously cannot have anything going against the narrative diehard Remainers have that Brexit dooms the Union can we!!
Only 47% in favour of the union with the UK? United Ireland here we come.
On topic Alastair's desire to prove everything bad that might happen in the next millenium is an inevitable consequence of Brexit and proves that everyone who voted for it is an idiot really understates pretty long running trends in NI. The Protestants have been losing their majority for 30 years at least and we are at the switching point where the non religious are already the swing voters and the catholics have a plurality.
The deal with NI reflects not evil incompetence but the reality that NI is much more integrated with a much more dynamic Southern Ireland than it was when Ireland had a pretty ordinary agricultural economy. That needed to be protected. NI is not economically strong as it is and could not afford to lose access to that dynamism. Will there come a point when Ireland offers more than the UK? Maybe. But probably not for a while yet.
The key point with the Northern Ireland Protocol is that Johnson deliberately prioritised the ability of England to diverge from the European Union over maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, And to make this clearer, Theresa May prioritised the other way. That's the difference between the two deals.
The union flags that Johnson drapes himself in are just as fraudulent as the rest of his act. The surprising thing about this story is that the DUP went along with it, with enthusiasm, Whatever you might think of the DUP you would expect them to sniff out a fake Unionist at twenty paces.
I acknowledge that May's deal was better in this respect but it is a fact that the southern Irish economy is far, far more of a draw than it was 20 years ago and it will inevitably play a bigger role in NI's economic future going forward.
What Boris didn't like about May's deal was that it tied in the UK as a whole more closely to the EU than his deal does. In his view that is a trade off worth making, even if NI's economy meant that they had to have a different arrangement.
I have been wondering why all these mainland UK companies who have, often reluctantly, started setting up satellite offices in EU or employing EU proxies to handle some of their sales, aren't thinking about setting up in NI?
We are setting up a new office in the EU. Do you guys want to move to Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, or Belfast...
I've been to the first two. But not the second two. Personally I would rather live in Amsterdam than Paris.
Yes...been to all of them, and would rank them Amsterdam/Berlin/Paris/Belfast. Belfast is definitely the one that feels most like a foreign country, though quite a grand one with a lot of fine old buildings for a relatively small city. Amsterdam feels like a pleasant version of home.
you could have just ranked them on their middle class feel and got the same result.
Have the celebrations died down from looking at the well worn photo of Johnson receiving a phone call from Biden yet?
The only people who gave a shiny shit were those disappointed it had happened.
You mean there were other really needy sad losers apart from Boris who gave a crap about it.
There absolutely is malc. Its sad but there were people sure boris would not get an early call when Biden was first elected and that that would be significant. He did of course, but people who thought it would be vital even included a tory mp saying we had to earn that call. And his opponents definitely were ready to talk about what it would mean.
I wish we'd not lie to ourselves that some people really do think getting the call early is important and predicted Boris would not get one. Those people cannot say now it does not matter and some we can confidently predict would have been saying it mattered this time had it not happened.
It never did matter, but it isn't merely needy Boris and his fans who get worked up about it and I see no value in pretending it is.
No one here believes that, I'm sure. We know what politics is like - politicians and pundits are switching position on whether it matters based on if they lije Boris.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
A bit of caution on polling methodologies for the NI Border Poll. There is no doubt there has been a massive trend towards a United Ireland since the Brexit referendum, for what was previously a settled issue in favour of the status quo. But it's not there yet,
I note Alistair has completely and deliberately ignored the key finding from Northern Ireland from that poll that Northern Irish voters by a margin of 47% to 42% oppose a United Ireland.
Obviously cannot have anything going against the narrative diehard Remainers have that Brexit dooms the Union can we!!
Only 47% in favour of the union with the UK? United Ireland here we come.
Only 42% in favour of a United Ireland despite Brexit and the NI Protocol? United Ireland going nowhere and NI Secretary will correctly refuse a border poll for the rest of this Parliament
We're running at over a thousand deaths per day and the twats are talking about easing lockdown. FFS.
Do they have any concept of how fucked we currently are?
Obviously not. Its not just the morgues, the hospitals are far too busy and stretched to the limit. Until that changes lockdowns are not going to end and the schools are not going back in either.
No, its not. These issues existed before Brexit, they exist after it. We didn't have a referendum in 2014 because of Brexit, Independence has been an issue ever since. Of course people want to use this "change" as an excuse but the SNP were not exactly resigned to not pursuing independence to 2017.
Similarly in NI. We had the troubles for the best part of 20 years on the back of the desire of a significant minority to have a united Ireland. That minority is moving to a majority. What the hell has Brexit got to do with it?
What Brexit has done if prove beyond any doubt to those in Northern Ireland that the Union is a sham. When you have a relationship, it is totally disheartening to be treated like sh*t and then be scrapped off the bottom of your partner's boot.
We are supposed to be in the UK. We have to have import documents to buy things in our own f*****g country. What is next? Internal passports?
Being Scottish will not save you either, your turn will come when the English nationalists decide that Scotland is a drag or an obstacle then Scotland will be jettisoned. If Nicola Sturgeon wants independence all she has to do is hold the vote south of the border....
We're running at over a thousand deaths per day and the twats are talking about easing lockdown. FFS.
Do they have any concept of how fucked we currently are?
They're not very good at knuckling down for the greater good. This is time for the government equivalent of a Test innings, not flapping about at every delivery faced.
No, its not. These issues existed before Brexit, they exist after it. We didn't have a referendum in 2014 because of Brexit, Independence has been an issue ever since. Of course people want to use this "change" as an excuse but the SNP were not exactly resigned to not pursuing independence to 2017.
Similarly in NI. We had the troubles for the best part of 20 years on the back of the desire of a significant minority to have a united Ireland. That minority is moving to a majority. What the hell has Brexit got to do with it?
Taking this slowly, since you are determined not to understand.
Brexit did not cause the Scottish independence movement, it did not cause the problems in Northern Ireland. What it did was shake both all up. Just like shaking a can of pop, what you then saw was them fizz over. Which was entirely predictable and predicted.
In the case of Northern Ireland specifically, the connection is particularly clear. The government has consciously chosen to make Northern Ireland’s suppliers reorganise their supply lines chaotically from mainland GB to the Republic of Ireland, so far as they can. This is going to supercharge the integration of the economy of island of Ireland.
Judging this government by its actions rather than its words, it seems to will the end of the union. A shame for unionists in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, but both sets will have plenty of time to reflect on their past gullibility.
Alastair I loved your piece, but lets pick apart your statement that the "government has consciously chosen to make Northern Ireland’s suppliers reorganise their supply lines chaotically from mainland GB to the Republic of Ireland"
They haven't. The FT expose detailed how utterly clueless Shagger and Frost were at what the negotiation was. No clue as to the value of the variables they were trading, no objectives other than being able to crow about sovereignty. People show that video of a (drunken?) Boris regaling the NI businesspeople with a guarantee that there will be no paperwork as him lying.
I don't think he was lying, I just think he hadn't a clue how any of it worked. The same is true with so many of the morons in the cabinet whether it be Raaaaaab not understanding the importance and scale of Dover - Calais, or Patel not getting that SHE controls the border, or Lewis not understanding that his department manages the GB - NI border he insists doesn't exist. These people are stupid, literally clueless.
How could the lying sex-pest insist no paperwork then sign a deal with paperwork then insist there is no paperwork? Because he didn't understand how anything works and still doesn't care. Detail is for the little people. When the party turf him out and his legacy gets binned and reversed as quickly as the Poll Tax was, he will continue to be baffled. 'Didn't I deliver what people asked for?' NO!
That sounds right. Boris was not lying about no border in the Irish Sea: he did not understand what the term meant or the consequences of his own deal.
On the question of Irish reunification, although @AlastairMeeks is right that this will be accelerated by Brexit and its Irish Sea border, it is not clear that this is in any way due to the DUP, even if Brexit is what the DUP campaigned for.
One factor that should not be overlooked is the recent economic growth of Ireland. It is no longer a relatively poor, religion-dominated, largely agrarian state. Its GDP per capita is higher than Britain's. Following the Good Friday Agreement, the border is, if not invisible, then transparent. The Troubles are consigned to the history books. The influence of the church is much diminished. A united Ireland is no longer scary.
The magic of the Bumbling Boris persona. He's not nearly as stupid as he pretends to be. While he might not know the details, I'm sure he's entirely aware of the big picture. It's just that cutting off NI and the DUP was what suited him best at the time. All the better for him if people think it was accidental.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
Wheel out the old "if your granny had Testicles" myth
It's definitely gone from Never going to happen, through might happen and into will happen some time in the next 50 years
The remarkable thing is that Brexit is the reason why I think it's inevitable. The entire fish story is designed to show that Scotland would be better apart as the UK Government is careless.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
Well, I think David L is quite logical in believing in one, and rejecting the other.
As other posters have commented, the economic arguments don't really drive many votes one way or the other. It's about identity. There's nothing illogical about feeling an attachment to the United Kingdom, but no attachment to the European Union.
We're running at over a thousand deaths per day and the twats are talking about easing lockdown. FFS.
Do they have any concept of how fucked we currently are?
At a guess, I'd say some of the opponents have a libertarian monomania around tearing down all the restrictions, others are worried merely that the Government will swing into overcautious territory and we'll all be locked down tighter and for longer than is actually necessary. Personally, I suspect that easing will be very tentative indeed and that substantial chunks of the economy (notably hotels, pubs and restaurants) will be kept firmly closed until the entire adult population has been lanced. This is probably the sort of thing that the latter group of opponents is afraid of as well: first jabs for all the young and fit might very well not be completed before August or September.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Weird that they are still using landline telephones instead of video links.
I thought that. Is there a security issue?
Is that an actual photograph of the actual call? As someone noted on the last thread, the desk is quite small. The position of the mirrors relative to the desk is odd too, as if a desk has been jammed in wherever there is space rather than as a carefully designed, permanent arrangement. It looks more like Boris has answered a ringing phone in the accounts department as he was passing through on his way to the coffee machine.
Yes, but I think the crucial point was how many would vote that way even if believing things would be worse off. I hope theres a positive case advocate version of you out there fighting for the union.
Quite right too, if all over 70s are vaccinated as planned by March we must end the National Lockdown from 1st March and return to a tiers system and I would hope for a large revolt from Tory MPs if that was not the case
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
Well, I think David L is quite logical in believing in one, and rejecting the other.
As other posters have commented, the economic arguments don't really drive many votes one way or the other. It's about identity. There's nothing illogical about feeling an attachment to the United Kingdom, but no attachment to the European Union.
The problem is what you then do about it.
If a majority of Scots have little to no attachment to the U.K., Brexiteers should sympathise and set them free. Instead the Brexiteers argue that they should stay in the union.
Equally the SNP argue that unions with London are inherently bad, but unions with Brussels are inherently good.
Anecdata on why people refuse vaccinations (source: council colleagues): Primarily, they are confused by media messaging and it's really that which needs addressing with public information broadcasts. Commandeer the BBC for 10 minutes a day, throw money at Facebook and Twitter and Snapchat and YouTube, just get the message out, use diverse multi-ethnic multi-party messengers (here we really do need community leaders) and keep it honest.
1. Are there serious side-effects? (Virtually never.) 2. Might they get the bug anyway? (Yes, but much less likely, and stay sensibly distanced for now anyway.) 3. Is the 12(+?)-week gap scientifically based? (Not really, but it's still much better than nothing.) 4. Is vaccine X better than vaccine Y? (Yes, but they're all much better than nothing.) 5. Should we trust Boris Johnson? (Not relevant.)
On the upside, someone who runs a chain of care homes says that reports of resistance there seem overblown - in her homes, 99% are taking the jab with more or less enthusiasm.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Because throwing them more powers has always worked for Unionists before.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
The voters may say that now but Scottish indie has the massive issue of currency and the £.
What other country in the world has an issue with it's currency, why should it be an issue here, like any other country they either peg to a currency or issue their own, it is not rocket science.
If Johnsonism is about the personal and party exercise of power, so what?
I'm sure that he would rather have untrammeled power over the whole UK, but given a choice between complete power over England and incomplete power over the UK, I think I know which way this version of the Conservative Party will jump. And it's not to protect the Union.
(And yes- the Tories have always been pragmatic about the persuit of power. Good for them. Wasn't it Iain Macleod who had the line about "They have dreams and schemes... We have work to do"? But there's a difference between getting power to achieve things and power bring the end in itself. The Conservatives seem too close to the second for comfort.)
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
Well, I think David L is quite logical in believing in one, and rejecting the other.
As other posters have commented, the economic arguments don't really drive many votes one way or the other. It's about identity. There's nothing illogical about feeling an attachment to the United Kingdom, but no attachment to the European Union.
The problem is what you then do about it.
If a majority of Scots have little to no attachment to the U.K., Brexiteers should sympathise and set them free. Instead the Brexiteers argue that they should stay in the union.
Equally the SNP argue that unions with London are inherently bad, but unions with Brussels are inherently good.
It’s pathetic.
Well, if most Scots do desire independence, there's no point holding them against their will.
That's been my view not just since Brexit, but since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, depsite holding just one Scottish seat. The argument at that point was that Scotland would not tolerate a government with so little Scottish support. Even if that's true, that's no reason why the rest of us can't vote for a centre-eight eurosceptic government.
The argument is that brexit has turbo charged the Scottish Indy movement.
The SNP would still be arguing for Indy even if remain had won. Makes 0 difference.
Makes a big difference to the support though, why do you think it is rising as we are torn out of EU and Westminster start demolishing devolution, are you blind.
On topic Alastair's desire to prove everything bad that might happen in the next millenium is an inevitable consequence of Brexit and proves that everyone who voted for it is an idiot really understates pretty long running trends in NI. The Protestants have been losing their majority for 30 years at least and we are at the switching point where the non religious are already the swing voters and the catholics have a plurality.
The deal with NI reflects not evil incompetence but the reality that NI is much more integrated with a much more dynamic Southern Ireland than it was when Ireland had a pretty ordinary agricultural economy. That needed to be protected. NI is not economically strong as it is and could not afford to lose access to that dynamism. Will there come a point when Ireland offers more than the UK? Maybe. But probably not for a while yet.
The key point with the Northern Ireland Protocol is that Johnson deliberately prioritised the ability of England to diverge from the European Union over maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, And to make this clearer, Theresa May prioritised the other way. That's the difference between the two deals.
The union flags that Johnson drapes himself in are just as fraudulent as the rest of his act. The surprising thing about this story is that the DUP went along with it, with enthusiasm, Whatever you might think of the DUP you would expect them to sniff out a fake Unionist at twenty paces.
I acknowledge that May's deal was better in this respect but it is a fact that the southern Irish economy is far, far more of a draw than it was 20 years ago and it will inevitably play a bigger role in NI's economic future going forward.
What Boris didn't like about May's deal was that it tied in the UK as a whole more closely to the EU than his deal does. In his view that is a trade off worth making, even if NI's economy meant that they had to have a different arrangement.
I agree with your first point. Northern Ireland hasn't flourished in recent decades under British Rule. The pivot to the South engendered by the NI Protocol that no-one in Northern Ireland wants may in time deliver an economic boost. Ireland is a successful and prosperous country these days. As Northern Ireland becomes defacto a political part of Ireland, remaining in the EU, the formal ties to the UK waste away and no-one minds too much. That would be a benign scenario if it happens.
I disagree with your second point. Johnson explicitly prioritised divergence of part of the UK over maintaining the integrity of the Union. It's in the treaty and no amount of denying the Irish Sea border gets away from that. Theresa May prioritised the other way. Johnson's choice may or may not be the right one, but it was the choice he made, despite him denying the consequences of it.
Spain, Ireland and some others at 0? That surely cannot be right.
It could be poor reporting, or not reporting at weekends (I think Scotland and Wales don't report at weekends either) or they might have used up all their rations from the central scheme and be waiting for new deliveries. Who can say?
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other.
This has never been true and is false logic that gets trotted out all the time to attack the SNP or Leavers or both.
A lot of the arguments will be broadly the same, it is true. But not all Unions are the same, so the arguments will have different weight.
There is nothing illogical in someone making a value judgement that they feel the benefits of Union A are worth it but the benefits of Union B are not.
The false logic pays no heed to judging the worth of each Union to the nation in question. If a Scot is happy to be in the EU but not the UK many might disagree but it's not illogical. Nor a Leaver wanting out of the EU without wanting Scotland to leave the UK.
Believing nation A should not be in a particular Union does not mean the concept of a Union is impossible to support, thats not logic.
If Johnsonism is about the personal and party exercise of power, so what?
I'm sure that he would rather have untrammeled power over the whole UK, but given a choice between complete power over England and incomplete power over the UK, I think I know which way this version big the Conservative Party will jump. And it's not to protect the Union.
(And yes- the Tories have always been pragmatic about the persuit of power. Good for them. Wasn't it Iain Macleod who had the line about "They have dreams and schemes... We have work to do"? But there's a difference between getting power to achieve things and power bring the end in itself. The Conservatives seem too close to the second for comfort.)
It will be interesting to look back on some of the key drivers for independence - devolution (and lack of representation for England via a parliament of some kind) probably was the beginning of the end. All sorts of constitutional imbalances seem to have been created out it.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Because throwing them more powers has always worked for Unionists before.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
Devomax for Holyrood plus an English Parliament would be my preferred option, though I would accept regional Assemblies within England.
Most large nations in the world now are Federal and we should become more Federal too
If Johnsonism is about the personal and party exercise of power, so what?
I'm sure that he would rather have untrammeled power over the whole UK, but given a choice between complete power over England and incomplete power over the UK, I think I know which way this version of the Conservative Party will jump. And it's not to protect the Union.
I agree that's the way the party would jump, but I don't think that is the legacy BoZo imagined for himself.
He wants to be the hero of Brexit, not the villain of secession
Quite right too, if all over 70s are vaccinated as planned by March we must end the National Lockdown from 1st March and return to a tiers system and I would hope for a large revolt from Tory MPs if that was not the case
Have the celebrations died down from looking at the well worn photo of Johnson receiving a phone call from Biden yet?
Sad losers all excited at being 3rd to get a phone call.
Has Sturgeon had her call yet? Of course, I mean the call from old pal Trump, not Biden.
A really saddo pops up. She does not have such a flaky inferiority complex as unionists have, a confident outgoing democratic person , willing to be judged by the people saddo. Go wet your pants again looking at Bozo and his phone call photo.
The voters may say that now but Scottish indie has the massive issue of currency and the £.
What other country in the world has an issue with it's currency, why should it be an issue here, like any other country they either peg to a currency or issue their own, it is not rocket science.
Absolutely true, but Salmond tripped over his own shoelaces last time around when he tried to articulate what the choice would be. It would be a very good idea for his successor to advance a clear and workable plan this time.
The Scottish Government ought to start the next campaign in the lead, but if it does enough to convince the middling sort of voter that they will be significantly worse off then it could still lose again anyway. Self-inflicted wounds must be avoided.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Because throwing them more powers has always worked for Unionists before.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
You appear to be working backwards from the conclusion.
The voters may say that now but Scottish indie has the massive issue of currency and the £.
What other country in the world has an issue with it's currency, why should it be an issue here, like any other country they either peg to a currency or issue their own, it is not rocket science.
The Greeks, for example, share a currency with others - or are pegged to a currency if you like, and don't have the power or resource to leave it and issue their own, the EU only having one direction of travel. Is it truly problem free? Are there no issues with it?
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
I don't think you know what "logical" means.
For starters, Scotland's place in the UK is constitutionally extremely different from UK's former place in Europe. Socially, linguistically, economically, geographically, historically, the two situations are very different.
You only think they are the same because they are both separations. If you think the form of argument is all that counts, even when the predicates are all different, then you are mistaken.
We're running at over a thousand deaths per day and the twats are talking about easing lockdown. FFS.
Do they have any concept of how fucked we currently are?
At a guess, I'd say some of the opponents have a libertarian monomania around tearing down all the restrictions, others are worried merely that the Government will swing into overcautious territory and we'll all be locked down tighter and for longer than is actually necessary. Personally, I suspect that easing will be very tentative indeed and that substantial chunks of the economy (notably hotels, pubs and restaurants) will be kept firmly closed until the entire adult population has been lanced. This is probably the sort of thing that the latter group of opponents is afraid of as well: first jabs for all the young and fit might very well not be completed before August or September.
Because Captain Cautious keeps merrily voting with the Govt, or decisively abstaining, the only opposition to Govt is coming from the backbenches.
We cannot stay locked down for longer than the spring when at the same time lots of people will have acquired protection from vaccines.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
Yes and given last 19 polls have had a range from 52-59 for Independence it is a big bit misleading into the bargain.
That is a bit of a better point, as 52 appears to be on the low end, bit I still read the point as saying if its 52 now theres a chance to prevent it, not that it's not permissible if any vote is only 52.
Either I've misread it or people are leaping too quickly on what they think it said rather than said.
I mean it said confidence about going down the indy route, surely that was talking confidence the 52 will bear out in a vote, not a denial of 52 being sufficient for a vote outcome?
It is far from certain yet , but it is all one way travel, under 40's are now over 70% I believe, only people over 65 are more than 50% for the union.. It is definitely on it's last legs. Dictatorship will not save it for long as we have seen many times throughout the world.
On topic Alastair's desire to prove everything bad that might happen in the next millenium is an inevitable consequence of Brexit and proves that everyone who voted for it is an idiot really understates pretty long running trends in NI. The Protestants have been losing their majority for 30 years at least and we are at the switching point where the non religious are already the swing voters and the catholics have a plurality.
The deal with NI reflects not evil incompetence but the reality that NI is much more integrated with a much more dynamic Southern Ireland than it was when Ireland had a pretty ordinary agricultural economy. That needed to be protected. NI is not economically strong as it is and could not afford to lose access to that dynamism. Will there come a point when Ireland offers more than the UK? Maybe. But probably not for a while yet.
The key point with the Northern Ireland Protocol is that Johnson deliberately prioritised the ability of England to diverge from the European Union over maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, And to make this clearer, Theresa May prioritised the other way. That's the difference between the two deals.
The union flags that Johnson drapes himself in are just as fraudulent as the rest of his act. The surprising thing about this story is that the DUP went along with it, with enthusiasm, Whatever you might think of the DUP you would expect them to sniff out a fake Unionist at twenty paces.
I acknowledge that May's deal was better in this respect but it is a fact that the southern Irish economy is far, far more of a draw than it was 20 years ago and it will inevitably play a bigger role in NI's economic future going forward.
What Boris didn't like about May's deal was that it tied in the UK as a whole more closely to the EU than his deal does. In his view that is a trade off worth making, even if NI's economy meant that they had to have a different arrangement.
I agree with your first point. Northern Ireland hasn't flourished in recent decades under British Rule. The pivot to the South engendered by the NI Protocol that no-one in Northern Ireland wants may in time deliver an economic boost. Ireland is a successful and prosperous country these days. As Northern Ireland becomes defacto a political part of Ireland, remaining in the EU, the formal ties to the UK waste away and no-one minds too much. That would be a benign scenario if it happens.
I disagree with your second point. Johnson explicitly prioritised divergence of part of the UK over maintaining the integrity of the Union. It's in the treaty and no amount of denying the Irish Sea border gets away from that. Theresa May prioritised the other way. Johnson's choice may or may not be the right one, but it was the choice he made, despite him denying the consequences of it.
Has anyone done a poll in NI which splits respondents to the question by age?. If support for the Union is higher among older people it might mean that the secularisation of the Republic is having an effect. Younger people, by and large, seem less 'religious' than us oldies. And, no, I'm not a churchgoer, although I was brought up to be, and most of my children and grandchildren certainly aren't.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
Well, I think David L is quite logical in believing in one, and rejecting the other.
As other posters have commented, the economic arguments don't really drive many votes one way or the other. It's about identity. There's nothing illogical about feeling an attachment to the United Kingdom, but no attachment to the European Union.
The problem is what you then do about it.
If a majority of Scots have little to no attachment to the U.K., Brexiteers should sympathise and set them free. Instead the Brexiteers argue that they should stay in the union.
Equally the SNP argue that unions with London are inherently bad, but unions with Brussels are inherently good.
It’s pathetic.
Well, if most Scots do desire independence, there's no point holding them against their will.
That's been my view not just since Brexit, but since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, depsite holding just one Scottish seat. The argument at that point was that Scotland would not tolerate a government with so little Scottish support. Even if that's true, that's no reason why the rest of us can't vote for a centre-eight eurosceptic government.
Our constitution, unlike the US senate, offers no mechanism to restrain the executive when it pursued policies that di not give regard regional differences and create tensions inside the union.
When we have a government that aggressively takes advantage of our elective dictatorship,assert a majority position and pursue a policy supported by only parts of country problems will inevitably emerge.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other.
This has never been true and is false logic that gets trotted out all the time to attack the SNP or Leavers or both.
A lot of the arguments will be broadly the same, it is true. But not all Unions are the same, so the arguments will have different weight.
There is nothing illogical in someone making a value judgement that they feel the benefits of Union A are worth it but the benefits of Union B are not.
The false logic pays no heed to judging the worth of each Union to the nation in question. If a Scot is happy to be in the EU but not the UK many might disagree but it's not illogical. Nor a Leaver wanting out of the EU without wanting Scotland to leave the UK.
Believing nation A should not be in a particular Union does not mean the concept of a Union is impossible to support, thats not logic.
I agree that it is possible with consistency to support one union and not the other. The problem the Conservative and Unionist Party has, assuming it cares two hoots about the Union and isn't just the Brexit Party acting as a fifth column, is that it has no credibility using the arguments of EU Remain in the Scottish independence debate, Even if those arguments might appeal to those that support both Unions, In aggregate Scots did support both Unions until Brexit came along.
The voters may say that now but Scottish indie has the massive issue of currency and the £.
What other country in the world has an issue with it's currency, why should it be an issue here, like any other country they either peg to a currency or issue their own, it is not rocket science.
Absolutely true, but Salmond tripped over his own shoelaces last time around when he tried to articulate what the choice would be. It would be a very good idea for his successor to advance a clear and workable plan this time.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
Yes and given last 19 polls have had a range from 52-59 for Independence it is a big bit misleading into the bargain.
That is a bit of a better point, as 52 appears to be on the low end, bit I still read the point as saying if its 52 now theres a chance to prevent it, not that it's not permissible if any vote is only 52.
Either I've misread it or people are leaping too quickly on what they think it said rather than said.
I mean it said confidence about going down the indy route, surely that was talking confidence the 52 will bear out in a vote, not a denial of 52 being sufficient for a vote outcome?
It is far from certain yet , but it is all one way travel, under 40's are now over 70% I believe, only people over 65 are more than 50% for the union.. It is definitely on it's last legs. Dictatorship will not save it for long as we have seen many times throughout the world.
It might well be too late to save it. But I hope those who still do care fight hard. And not in the hyufd on the beaches sense.
Itll be very bitter and toxic for a long time afterwards though, but that cannot be helped.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
Well, I think David L is quite logical in believing in one, and rejecting the other.
As other posters have commented, the economic arguments don't really drive many votes one way or the other. It's about identity. There's nothing illogical about feeling an attachment to the United Kingdom, but no attachment to the European Union.
The problem is what you then do about it.
If a majority of Scots have little to no attachment to the U.K., Brexiteers should sympathise and set them free. Instead the Brexiteers argue that they should stay in the union.
Equally the SNP argue that unions with London are inherently bad, but unions with Brussels are inherently good.
It’s pathetic.
Well, if most Scots do desire independence, there's no point holding them against their will.
That's been my view not just since Brexit, but since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, depsite holding just one Scottish seat. The argument at that point was that Scotland would not tolerate a government with so little Scottish support. Even if that's true, that's no reason why the rest of us can't vote for a centre-eight eurosceptic government.
Our constitution, unlike the US senate, offers no mechanism to restrain the executive when it pursued policies that di not give regard regional differences and create tensions inside the union.
When we have a government that aggressively takes advantage of our elective dictatorship,assert a majority position and pursue a policy supported by only parts of country problems will inevitably emerge.
Come off it, we don't have an elective dictatorship. We have an overcentralised democracy, with too much executive power, but the legislature and judiciary are capable of reigning in the executive, and we have free elections to decide the legislature.
It's definitely gone from Never going to happen, through might happen and into will happen some time in the next 50 years
The remarkable thing is that Brexit is the reason why I think it's inevitable. The entire fish story is designed to show that Scotland would be better apart as the UK Government is careless.
You are very kind to them with "careless", more like don't give a hoot what happens if it is just the colonies getting pasted.
The voters may say that now but Scottish indie has the massive issue of currency and the £.
What other country in the world has an issue with it's currency, why should it be an issue here, like any other country they either peg to a currency or issue their own, it is not rocket science.
The issue is how you get from UK £ to Scottish Groat or whatever it is to be called.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other.
This has never been true and is false logic that gets trotted out all the time to attack the SNP or Leavers or both.
A lot of the arguments will be broadly the same, it is true. But not all Unions are the same, so the arguments will have different weight.
There is nothing illogical in someone making a value judgement that they feel the benefits of Union A are worth it but the benefits of Union B are not.
The false logic pays no heed to judging the worth of each Union to the nation in question. If a Scot is happy to be in the EU but not the UK many might disagree but it's not illogical. Nor a Leaver wanting out of the EU without wanting Scotland to leave the UK.
Believing nation A should not be in a particular Union does not mean the concept of a Union is impossible to support, thats not logic.
If your point is that Brexit is purely a flag waving preference for one tribe over another, then you have a point.
However if you argue, as many did, that there were important underlying democratic principles and that it is important for people to take back control, then you do not.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Because throwing them more powers has always worked for Unionists before.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
You appear to be working backwards from the conclusion.
No. There has never been a plan for dealing with the WLQ, and there's still no plan in these nebulous calls for Devomax (whatever precisely that is.) The only agenda seems to be to make the Scottish Parliament more and more powerful without actually following through to the logical conclusion and letting Scotland go. The "more powers" mob have no answers for anything.
What is the point of a Union that consists of not much more than sharing an army? No answer What do we do about the ability of Scottish MPs to meddle in our business? No answer Why must the English taxpayer keep throwing fat subsidies at a country that is foreign in all but name, and where at least 45% of the population is desperate to be rid of us? No answer Why wouldn't we all be better off if Scotland were simply a detached and friendly neighbour, like the Netherlands or Denmark? No answer
If Johnsonism is about the personal and party exercise of power, so what?
I'm sure that he would rather have untrammeled power over the whole UK, but given a choice between complete power over England and incomplete power over the UK, I think I know which way this version of the Conservative Party will jump. And it's not to protect the Union.
I agree that's the way the party would jump, but I don't think that is the legacy BoZo imagined for himself.
He wants to be the hero of Brexit, not the villain of secession
[Stern nanny voice ON] Master Boris needs to learn that just because Master Boris wants something doesn't mean that Master Boris gets it. [Stern nanny voice OFF]
On topic Alastair's desire to prove everything bad that might happen in the next millenium is an inevitable consequence of Brexit and proves that everyone who voted for it is an idiot really understates pretty long running trends in NI. The Protestants have been losing their majority for 30 years at least and we are at the switching point where the non religious are already the swing voters and the catholics have a plurality.
The deal with NI reflects not evil incompetence but the reality that NI is much more integrated with a much more dynamic Southern Ireland than it was when Ireland had a pretty ordinary agricultural economy. That needed to be protected. NI is not economically strong as it is and could not afford to lose access to that dynamism. Will there come a point when Ireland offers more than the UK? Maybe. But probably not for a while yet.
The key point with the Northern Ireland Protocol is that Johnson deliberately prioritised the ability of England to diverge from the European Union over maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, And to make this clearer, Theresa May prioritised the other way. That's the difference between the two deals.
The union flags that Johnson drapes himself in are just as fraudulent as the rest of his act. The surprising thing about this story is that the DUP went along with it, with enthusiasm, Whatever you might think of the DUP you would expect them to sniff out a fake Unionist at twenty paces.
I acknowledge that May's deal was better in this respect but it is a fact that the southern Irish economy is far, far more of a draw than it was 20 years ago and it will inevitably play a bigger role in NI's economic future going forward.
What Boris didn't like about May's deal was that it tied in the UK as a whole more closely to the EU than his deal does. In his view that is a trade off worth making, even if NI's economy meant that they had to have a different arrangement.
I agree with your first point. Northern Ireland hasn't flourished in recent decades under British Rule. The pivot to the South engendered by the NI Protocol that no-one in Northern Ireland wants may in time deliver an economic boost. Ireland is a successful and prosperous country these days. As Northern Ireland becomes defacto a political part of Ireland, remaining in the EU, the formal ties to the UK waste away and no-one minds too much. That would be a benign scenario if it happens.
I disagree with your second point. Johnson explicitly prioritised divergence of part of the UK over maintaining the integrity of the Union. It's in the treaty and no amount of denying the Irish Sea border gets away from that. Theresa May prioritised the other way. Johnson's choice may or may not be the right one, but it was the choice he made, despite him denying the consequences of it.
Has anyone done a poll in NI which splits respondents to the question by age?. If support for the Union is higher among older people it might mean that the secularisation of the Republic is having an effect. Younger people, by and large, seem less 'religious' than us oldies. And, no, I'm not a churchgoer, although I was brought up to be, and most of my children and grandchildren certainly aren't.
The Alliance Party, which is non-aligned and doing well right now, draws its support more from Protestants than Catholics, I believe. It looks like the DUP is doing an increasingly poor job of representing its own community. The article linked in the thread I posted above goes into this.
We're running at over a thousand deaths per day and the twats are talking about easing lockdown. FFS.
Do they have any concept of how fucked we currently are?
Infections are falling sharply and there is initial evidence that hospitalizations are doing the same. At the same time, we are removing the higher risk people from the path of the virus. It seems reasonable to plan for the lifting of some restrictions in the future.
If Johnsonism is about the personal and party exercise of power, so what?
I'm sure that he would rather have untrammeled power over the whole UK, but given a choice between complete power over England and incomplete power over the UK, I think I know which way this version of the Conservative Party will jump. And it's not to protect the Union.
I agree that's the way the party would jump, but I don't think that is the legacy BoZo imagined for himself.
He wants to be the hero of Brexit, not the villain of secession
The trouble with this England and Wales one party dominance by the Conservatives notion, is that once in a while the dominant party irritate the voters to the point where they are no longer dominant, and it can happen very quickly. See Labour in Scotland as an example.
It's definitely gone from Never going to happen, through might happen and into will happen some time in the next 50 years
The remarkable thing is that Brexit is the reason why I think it's inevitable. The entire fish story is designed to show that Scotland would be better apart as the UK Government is careless.
It is a remarkable shift, and once it is thought to be inevitable, then the direction of travel changes, and politics changes as those with real ambition in politics, media, opinion forming, policy wonks etc prefer not to back losers.
Brexit had a particular effect of making losers of almost the entire civil establishment in the UK. Even now lots of them are struggling to get back to dry land. They won't want it happening again.
May it never happen, but a succession in the monarchy (the first since 1952) could well be a point at which all sorts of sentiment allows itself to change.
Personally I support reunification of Ireland but not the deunification of Britain; however an independent Scotland is becoming more than thinkable throughout the UK. An independent Scotland but NI still hanging on the E and W is unstable and can't last. Look at a map.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Because throwing them more powers has always worked for Unionists before.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
You appear to be working backwards from the conclusion.
No. There has never been a plan for dealing with the WLQ, and there's still no plan in these nebulous calls for Devomax (whatever precisely that is.) The only agenda seems to be to make the Scottish Parliament more and more powerful without actually following through to the logical conclusion and letting Scotland go. The "more powers" mob have no answers for anything.
What is the point of a Union that consists of not much more than sharing an army? No answer What do we do about the ability of Scottish MPs to meddle in our business? No answer Why must the English taxpayer keep throwing fat subsidies at a country that is foreign in all but name, and where at least 45% of the population is desperate to be rid of us? No answer Why wouldn't we all be better off if Scotland were simply a detached and friendly neighbour, like the Netherlands or Denmark? No answer
We are better and stronger together in the world as one United Kingdom. Breaking it up would weaken both England and Scotland as well as Wales.
Canada manages with 49% of Quebecois wanting to leave, Spain denied Catalans even one independence vote.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Because throwing them more powers has always worked for Unionists before.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
Devomax for Holyrood plus an English Parliament would be my preferred option, though I would accept regional Assemblies within England.
Most large nations in the world now are Federal and we should become more Federal too
I suspect that England is simply too big to work well as a devolved unit alongside the other nations.
I also suspect that part of the trouble is that word "regions"- it sounds beige, bureaucratic and British Rail knocking down Euston Arch. Ugh.
We're running at over a thousand deaths per day and the twats are talking about easing lockdown. FFS.
Do they have any concept of how fucked we currently are?
Infections are falling sharply and there is initial evidence that hospitalizations are doing the same. At the same time, we are removing the higher risk people from the path of the virus. It seems reasonable to plan for the lifting of some restrictions in the future.
In spring last year it took a month to go from 3 deaths a day to 1000 deaths a day. It then took 4 months to get back down to 3 deaths a day.
Now the vaccines makes this year different from last but it seems once again people have no grasp on the time scales involved.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other. But unfortunately logic plays no role in C21 politics, it’s all emotional nationalist bullshit so we end up with right wing and nationalist parties passionately arguing contradictory points depending on what day of the week it is.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
Well, I think David L is quite logical in believing in one, and rejecting the other.
As other posters have commented, the economic arguments don't really drive many votes one way or the other. It's about identity. There's nothing illogical about feeling an attachment to the United Kingdom, but no attachment to the European Union.
The problem is what you then do about it.
If a majority of Scots have little to no attachment to the U.K., Brexiteers should sympathise and set them free. Instead the Brexiteers argue that they should stay in the union.
Equally the SNP argue that unions with London are inherently bad, but unions with Brussels are inherently good.
It’s pathetic.
Well, if most Scots do desire independence, there's no point holding them against their will.
That's been my view not just since Brexit, but since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, depsite holding just one Scottish seat. The argument at that point was that Scotland would not tolerate a government with so little Scottish support. Even if that's true, that's no reason why the rest of us can't vote for a centre-eight eurosceptic government.
Our constitution, unlike the US senate, offers no mechanism to restrain the executive when it pursued policies that di not give regard regional differences and create tensions inside the union.
When we have a government that aggressively takes advantage of our elective dictatorship,assert a majority position and pursue a policy supported by only parts of country problems will inevitably emerge.
Come off it, we don't have an elective dictatorship. We have an overcentralised democracy, with too much executive power, but the legislature and judiciary are capable of reigning in the executive, and we have free elections to decide the legislature.
Better, more experienced minds than ours disagree with you.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
The point that @Mysticrose was making is, of course, that it doesn't exactly look like a done deal. Using round numbers, if we assume an 85% turnout in the next independence referendum then 2% of participating voters equals about 75,000 people. If 52:48 is in any way an accurate reflection of sentiment and a net 75,000 pro-independence electors can be convinced to switch horses during the campaign then that narrow majority is erased.
It's why there was some suggestion in the past of attaining a consistent 60:40 gap before pressing for an actual vote, so as to avoid the prospect of a narrow defeat at the ballot box. The 1995 Quebec referendum was lost by a wafer thin majority and twenty-five years later there's no prospect of a third tilt on the horizon. Though that said, I think that Scotland's a different case and if there is a second defeat the campaign for a third vote begins the following morning. Stability cannot be achieved within the existing settlement, which is one more good reason for wanting to see the back of the Union.
In 1995 Yes to independence from Canada got 49% in Quebec but 26 years later there has been no indyref3.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Because throwing them more powers has always worked for Unionists before.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
Devomax for Holyrood plus an English Parliament would be my preferred option, though I would accept regional Assemblies within England.
Most large nations in the world now are Federal and we should become more Federal too
I suspect that England is simply too big to work well as a devolved unit alongside the other nations.
I also suspect that part of the trouble is that word "regions"- it sounds beige, bureaucratic and British Rail knocking down Euston Arch. Ugh.
We need a better name for them.
If Starmer becomes PM in 2024 expect Lord Gordon Brown to be appointed Grand High Minister for the Union and indeed to give Scotland devomax and break England up into regions and regional assemblies, or provinces if you prefer.
England in effect at the moment only exists on the rugby and football pitch (even the cricket team is actually England and Wales), otherwise it is a non existent merely ceremonial nation so it would not make that much difference
The voters may say that now but Scottish indie has the massive issue of currency and the £.
What other country in the world has an issue with it's currency, why should it be an issue here, like any other country they either peg to a currency or issue their own, it is not rocket science.
Absolutely true, but Salmond tripped over his own shoelaces last time around when he tried to articulate what the choice would be. It would be a very good idea for his successor to advance a clear and workable plan this time.
Ah, you didn't watch the second debate then.
It's been about six-and-a-half years, refresh my memory.
The bottom line is that arguments for Brexit are the same for Scottish Independence, you can’t logically believe in one and reject the other.
This has never been true and is false logic that gets trotted out all the time to attack the SNP or Leavers or both.
A lot of the arguments will be broadly the same, it is true. But not all Unions are the same, so the arguments will have different weight.
There is nothing illogical in someone making a value judgement that they feel the benefits of Union A are worth it but the benefits of Union B are not.
The false logic pays no heed to judging the worth of each Union to the nation in question. If a Scot is happy to be in the EU but not the UK many might disagree but it's not illogical. Nor a Leaver wanting out of the EU without wanting Scotland to leave the UK.
Believing nation A should not be in a particular Union does not mean the concept of a Union is impossible to support, thats not logic.
If your point is that Brexit is purely a flag waving preference for one tribe over another, then you have a point.
However if you argue, as many did, that there were important underlying democratic principles and that it is important for people to take back control, then you do not.
I'm not arguing either, I'm saying people democratically can decide which unions they want to be a part of and which they do not, and they take back control in that way, and that your argument is a very poor one.
If you want to argue that by some of the arguments the SNP for example make that they should not believe both in Sindy and being in the EU that would be a different argument than the you've proffered, which is that people cannot possibly logically believe in both. That is categorically untrue, even if you feel some of the specific arguments they make undermine their attempt to make it.
Comments
Either I've misread it or people are leaping too quickly on what they think it said rather than said.
I mean it said confidence about going down the indy route, surely that was talking confidence the 52 will bear out in a vote, not a denial of 52 being sufficient for a vote outcome?
(And no, not spent in a 'coffee' shop).
Surely there must be some solution available to us?
Obviously cannot have anything going against the narrative diehard Remainers have that Brexit dooms the Union can we!!
Action to seal the borders: none
We are governed by morons.
Do they have any concept of how fucked we currently are?
What Boris didn't like about May's deal was that it tied in the UK as a whole more closely to the EU than his deal does. In his view that is a trade off worth making, even if NI's economy meant that they had to have a different arrangement.
I wish we'd not lie to ourselves that some people really do think getting the call early is important and predicted Boris would not get one. Those people cannot say now it does not matter and some we can confidently predict would have been saying it mattered this time had it not happened.
It never did matter, but it isn't merely needy Boris and his fans who get worked up about it and I see no value in pretending it is.
No one here believes that, I'm sure. We know what politics is like - politicians and pundits are switching position on whether it matters based on if they lije Boris.
My biggest contempt is for my own party. The coherent argument of the left that we’re all better off forming unions and collaborating seems to be expressed in the most dull, boring and apologetic terms. Frustrating.
If Brexit was decisive Yes should now be on 62%+ at least.
Yet on today's ST poll Yes is on just 49% including don't knows, a pathetic rise of just 4% since Brexit
https://twitter.com/marcusleroux/status/1353099780369625091
We are supposed to be in the UK. We have to have import documents to buy things in our own f*****g country. What is next? Internal passports?
Being Scottish will not save you either, your turn will come when the English nationalists decide that Scotland is a drag or an obstacle then Scotland will be jettisoned. If Nicola Sturgeon wants independence all she has to do is hold the vote south of the border....
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
The remarkable thing is that Brexit is the reason why I think it's inevitable. The entire fish story is designed to show that Scotland would be better apart as the UK Government is careless.
As other posters have commented, the economic arguments don't really drive many votes one way or the other. It's about identity. There's nothing illogical about feeling an attachment to the United Kingdom, but no attachment to the European Union.
Devomax for Quebec resolved the matter as would devomax for Scotland
Just cos you don't feel it...
Aren't they the same thing?
By the way the £ belongs to Scotland as much to the rest of the GB/NI
If a majority of Scots have little to no attachment to the U.K., Brexiteers should sympathise and set them free. Instead the Brexiteers argue that they should stay in the union.
Equally the SNP argue that unions with London are inherently bad, but unions with Brussels are inherently good.
It’s pathetic.
1. Are there serious side-effects? (Virtually never.)
2. Might they get the bug anyway? (Yes, but much less likely, and stay sensibly distanced for now anyway.)
3. Is the 12(+?)-week gap scientifically based? (Not really, but it's still much better than nothing.)
4. Is vaccine X better than vaccine Y? (Yes, but they're all much better than nothing.)
5. Should we trust Boris Johnson? (Not relevant.)
On the upside, someone who runs a chain of care homes says that reports of resistance there seem overblown - in her homes, 99% are taking the jab with more or less enthusiasm.
And Devomax does nothing at all to address the dreaded West Lothian Question. Au contraire: the issue of the 59 Scottish squatters in the House of Commons only becomes more acute.
Again, there is no problem in the constitutional mess that is the United Kingdom that is not resolved by getting rid of the United Kingdom.
I'm sure that he would rather have untrammeled power over the whole UK, but given a choice between complete power over England and incomplete power over the UK, I think I know which way this version of the Conservative Party will jump. And it's not to protect the Union.
(And yes- the Tories have always been pragmatic about the persuit of power. Good for them. Wasn't it Iain Macleod who had the line about "They have dreams and schemes... We have work to do"? But there's a difference between getting power to achieve things and power bring the end in itself. The Conservatives seem too close to the second for comfort.)
That's been my view not just since Brexit, but since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, depsite holding just one Scottish seat. The argument at that point was that Scotland would not tolerate a government with so little Scottish support. Even if that's true, that's no reason why the rest of us can't vote for a centre-eight eurosceptic government.
I disagree with your second point. Johnson explicitly prioritised divergence of part of the UK over maintaining the integrity of the Union. It's in the treaty and no amount of denying the Irish Sea border gets away from that. Theresa May prioritised the other way. Johnson's choice may or may not be the right one, but it was the choice he made, despite him denying the consequences of it.
A lot of the arguments will be broadly the same, it is true. But not all Unions are the same, so the arguments will have different weight.
There is nothing illogical in someone making a value judgement that they feel the benefits of Union A are worth it but the benefits of Union B are not.
The false logic pays no heed to judging the worth of each Union to the nation in question. If a Scot is happy to be in the EU but not the UK many might disagree but it's not illogical. Nor a Leaver wanting out of the EU without wanting Scotland to leave the UK.
Believing nation A should not be in a particular Union does not mean the concept of a Union is impossible to support, thats not logic.
Most large nations in the world now are Federal and we should become more Federal too
He wants to be the hero of Brexit, not the villain of secession
https://twitter.com/ThomasCArthur/status/1353144417272659968?s=20
The Scottish Government ought to start the next campaign in the lead, but if it does enough to convince the middling sort of voter that they will be significantly worse off then it could still lose again anyway. Self-inflicted wounds must be avoided.
For starters, Scotland's place in the UK is constitutionally extremely different from UK's former place in Europe. Socially, linguistically, economically, geographically, historically, the two situations are very different.
You only think they are the same because they are both separations. If you think the form of argument is all that counts, even when the predicates are all different, then you are mistaken.
We cannot stay locked down for longer than the spring when at the same time lots of people will have acquired protection from vaccines.
https://www.politico.eu/article/french-health-watchdog-calls-for-delay-in-second-vaccine-jab/
Younger people, by and large, seem less 'religious' than us oldies. And, no, I'm not a churchgoer, although I was brought up to be, and most of my children and grandchildren certainly aren't.
When we have a government that aggressively takes advantage of our elective dictatorship,assert a majority position and pursue a policy supported by only parts of country problems will inevitably emerge.
Itll be very bitter and toxic for a long time afterwards though, but that cannot be helped.
However if you argue, as many did, that there were important underlying democratic principles and that it is important for people to take back control, then you do not.
What is the point of a Union that consists of not much more than sharing an army? No answer
What do we do about the ability of Scottish MPs to meddle in our business? No answer
Why must the English taxpayer keep throwing fat subsidies at a country that is foreign in all but name, and where at least 45% of the population is desperate to be rid of us? No answer
Why wouldn't we all be better off if Scotland were simply a detached and friendly neighbour, like the Netherlands or Denmark? No answer
Master Boris needs to learn that just because Master Boris wants something doesn't mean that Master Boris gets it.
[Stern nanny voice OFF]
(Article: https://fortnightmagazine.org/articles/should-we-believe-the-opinion-polls-on-unification/)
https://twitter.com/marcusleroux/status/1353099780369625091
Brexit had a particular effect of making losers of almost the entire civil establishment in the UK. Even now lots of them are struggling to get back to dry land. They won't want it happening again.
May it never happen, but a succession in the monarchy (the first since 1952) could well be a point at which all sorts of sentiment allows itself to change.
Personally I support reunification of Ireland but not the deunification of Britain; however an independent Scotland is becoming more than thinkable throughout the UK. An independent Scotland but NI still hanging on the E and W is unstable and can't last. Look at a map.
Canada manages with 49% of Quebecois wanting to leave, Spain denied Catalans even one independence vote.
I also suspect that part of the trouble is that word "regions"- it sounds beige, bureaucratic and British Rail knocking down Euston Arch. Ugh.
We need a better name for them.
It then took 4 months to get back down to 3 deaths a day.
Now the vaccines makes this year different from last but it seems once again people have no grasp on the time scales involved.
England in effect at the moment only exists on the rugby and football pitch (even the cricket team is actually England and Wales), otherwise it is a non existent merely ceremonial nation so it would not make that much difference
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1388246/Emmanuel-Macron-Matt-Hancock-Sky-News-vaccine-rollout-France-UK-latest-news-vn
If you want to argue that by some of the arguments the SNP for example make that they should not believe both in Sindy and being in the EU that would be a different argument than the you've proffered, which is that people cannot possibly logically believe in both. That is categorically untrue, even if you feel some of the specific arguments they make undermine their attempt to make it.