I wonder whether Mike and the Mechanics singer Paul Carrack is a fan of test cricket. If he is he might be surprised to hear his vocals on Ace's 1974 hit How Long Has This Been Going On being played between overs on the TV commercials.
Seventies currently having a good run on commercials, with Plastic Bertrand as well.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
At the moment, the Tories would lose more MPs than Labour would if Scotland went independent. And the SNP don't vote on purely English matters.
At the moment most Scottish MPs are SNP and Labour are more likely to get into power with SNP support than to win a majority in England
Er, do you actually read what I post? I am talking about rUK after Scottish independence, which is clearly indicated by the words 'if Scotland went independent'. Much of the discussion today pertains to Labour's choices in that event.
There is a hole in his [Hancock's] plan so big that it can be seen by a moon-based astronaut with a foggy visor. It has little of substance to say about the crisis in adult social care. The pandemic has taken more than 25,000 lives in care homes and pitilessly underlined the myriad problems in the sector. On the day that he first stood outside Number 10, Boris Johnson declared that he was determined to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”. Since when, no plan has materialised. If he ever really possessed one, he appears to have mislaid it. Or perhaps Dilyn the Downing Street dog has eaten it. Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success.
He makes a case for urgency on the grounds that we need to get on with implementing the lessons from the coronavirus. That sounds reasonable until you remember that the government of which Mr Hancock is a member is led by Boris Johnson. The prime minister keeps resisting demands for a public inquiry on the grounds that we can’t “learn the lessons” until the crisis is over. Embarking on another round of NHS “reform” does not make much sense until we have a complete understanding of what worked and what didn’t during the gravest public health emergency in a century. You can’t put things right until you know precisely what went wrong.
"Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success."
Always the same problem. The old (and, by extension, their expectant heirs) won't pay. The shrinking working age population can't pay. So lofty words are uttered, but nothing is actually done.
Social care policy consists, in crude terms, of rationing the care and hoping that too many people don't moan too loudly. Because the alternative is something like the dementia tax, a policy so catastrophic that it very nearly let Jeremy Corbyn take over. There'll be no repetition of that mistake.
The 'Sunday Black_Rook' is a good deal more attuned to the political realities of the situation than the 'Sunday Rawnsley'.
If Dilyn did indeed eat the plans, it confirms my opinion that he is by far the smartest political operator in the Tory Government. And by far the prettiest.
Smart, Welsh and Sassy.
Dilyn used to be given the Cummings hate-mail to shred.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
At the moment, the Tories would lose more MPs than Labour would if Scotland went independent. And the SNP don't vote on purely English matters.
At the moment most Scottish MPs are SNP and Labour are more likely to get into power with SNP support than to win a majority in England
Er, do you actually read what I post? I am talking about rUK after Scottish independence, which is clearly indicated by the words 'if Scotland went independent'. Much of the discussion today pertains to Labour's choices in that event.
The Tories won a majority in England of 156 in England in 2019 compared to just 80 in the UK overall.
If Scotland went independent and Labour were in power the result would likely be a return of Tory rule in England
The Democrats in Congress have shown political ineptitude on an almost unprecedented scale. They should have left this alone and allowed the GOP to eat itself from the insides out. They have almost resurrected Trump.
Biden’s going to struggle to reunite the country with hyper-partisans like Pelosi around.
The whole thing was just political theatre, the Dems should have known they’d struggle to tie Trump directly to the Capitol tilts, in the eyes of sufficient numbers of Republican Senators.
As you say, they should have just ignored it and left a very split GOP.
Impeaching Trump was not ‘hyper partisanship’. It was the correct constitutional response. Prediction that this will unite Republicans are, IMO, likely to be as accurate as the forecasts that impeachment would bog down Senate business for many weeks.
Quite so. They had the constitutional power to take such action for just such events. Yes it didn't lead to conviction, but if you dont even try because itd be inconvenient what kind of message is that?
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
They are nutters if they think Theresa May is coming back as PM....
I actually think that by the end of May, even Tier 1 restrictions could be hard to justify.
Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides has claimed it wasn’t a queue at the butcher shop, "but the EU has treated it like that, like they can just place an order for the sausages and they’ll come," the person said. “That’s not what the U.K. has done. They helped the butcher buy a machine, helped it with staff, helped it with farming the pigs, helped it develop the recipe.”
Of the EU’s strategy, they said: “It's incredibly naive: These are the hardest manufacturing challenges the world has ever faced.”
Excellent header, though Sturgeon popular in England? (My evidence to the contrary would only be anecdotal, I admit, but I do often wonder who YouGov ask in their polling.)
I can believe it, but I dont know how useful is as with any polling about national or foreign politicians who don't have authority over those responding. It's like, people might say they like or dislike Macron or Drakeford, but even though they have s better chance of knowing at least some detailed about Welsh politics, being unaffected by it its harder to take an informed view.
All schoolchildren will return to the classroom on March 8 under plans to start lifting the lockdown, Boris Johnson will announce in a national address next week.
Under the government’s blueprint to reopen society, adults will initially have only small new freedoms so as to prioritise the return of schools — a move ministers know will raise the coronavirus R number for infections.
Adults will be allowed to sit down outdoors for a coffee or on a park bench with one friend, or with members of their own family — a slight relaxation of the current rule, which permits outdoor meetings only while standing up.
The decision to reopen both primary and secondary schools goes against the advice of some government scientists. But the prime minister was swayed by faster than expected reductions in hospital admissions and infections.
The move to prioritise the return of pupils over reopening the economy will put the prime minister on a collision course with Conservative MPs, 63 of whom signed a letter this weekend demanding the lifting of all restrictions by the end of April.
Downing Street regards a slow easing of social distancing measures as the price it has to pay for schools going back. “Getting pupils in class is the PM’s top priority,” a source said. “We know that will increase infections and we need to move cautiously with everything else.”
A second easing of social distancing rules is expected at the end of next month with the resumption of outdoor sports — such as golf and tennis — for two people from different households.
Further lifting of lockdown measures will depend on the progress of the virus and the vaccination programme. A decision on when to reopen universities is yet to be taken.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
The Democrats in Congress have shown political ineptitude on an almost unprecedented scale. They should have left this alone and allowed the GOP to eat itself from the insides out. They have almost resurrected Trump.
Totally disagree, resurrecting Trump greatly increases the Democrats chances of success for the next 4 years.
With Trump still in the game the GOP will be ripping lumps out of each other for the foreseeable future.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
Good comment. It was a dispiriting time which quite put me off Brexit as an idea, when everyone, on both sides, just tore chunks off each other endlessly.
The Democrats in Congress have shown political ineptitude on an almost unprecedented scale. They should have left this alone and allowed the GOP to eat itself from the insides out. They have almost resurrected Trump.
Biden’s going to struggle to reunite the country with hyper-partisans like Pelosi around.
The whole thing was just political theatre, the Dems should have known they’d struggle to tie Trump directly to the Capitol tilts, in the eyes of sufficient numbers of Republican Senators.
As you say, they should have just ignored it and left a very split GOP.
The GOP has no chance of uniting itself so it's hardly surprising that Biden isn't going to unite the country.
The QAnons and MAGAs aren't interested, nothing will reconcile them but I expect their numbers to diminish .
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
You should always listen to Alastair when he talks about Scotland.
In the summer of 2013 he tipped a plethora of Scottish seats to go SNP at the GE at odds as high as 66/1, it was an extremely profitable set of tips.
He also tipped the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 at 10/1 and then 8/1 on the day of the election, both of which were pooh poohed by one of the Scot Nats on here.
Thst doesn't surprise at all. Things are complicated but emotions are simple, so we generally feel pride or shame about things like history without getting in to why or agreeing about it the details of it , focusing on the bits we like or dont like.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
Refusing Scotland another vote when its voters had given an absolute majority to parties standing on a manifesto for a fresh independence referendum would be to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
There is a hole in his [Hancock's] plan so big that it can be seen by a moon-based astronaut with a foggy visor. It has little of substance to say about the crisis in adult social care. The pandemic has taken more than 25,000 lives in care homes and pitilessly underlined the myriad problems in the sector. On the day that he first stood outside Number 10, Boris Johnson declared that he was determined to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”. Since when, no plan has materialised. If he ever really possessed one, he appears to have mislaid it. Or perhaps Dilyn the Downing Street dog has eaten it. Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success.
He makes a case for urgency on the grounds that we need to get on with implementing the lessons from the coronavirus. That sounds reasonable until you remember that the government of which Mr Hancock is a member is led by Boris Johnson. The prime minister keeps resisting demands for a public inquiry on the grounds that we can’t “learn the lessons” until the crisis is over. Embarking on another round of NHS “reform” does not make much sense until we have a complete understanding of what worked and what didn’t during the gravest public health emergency in a century. You can’t put things right until you know precisely what went wrong.
"Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success."
Always the same problem. The old (and, by extension, their expectant heirs) won't pay. The shrinking working age population can't pay. So lofty words are uttered, but nothing is actually done.
Social care policy consists, in crude terms, of rationing the care and hoping that too many people don't moan too loudly. Because the alternative is something like the dementia tax, a policy so catastrophic that it very nearly let Jeremy Corbyn take over. There'll be no repetition of that mistake.
The 'Sunday Black_Rook' is a good deal more attuned to the political realities of the situation than the 'Sunday Rawnsley'.
If Dilyn did indeed eat the plans, it confirms my opinion that he is by far the smartest political operator in the Tory Government. And by far the prettiest.
Smart, Welsh and Sassy.
Dilyn used to be given the Cummings hate-mail to shred.
I wonder what they use now?
"the alternative is something like the dementia tax,"
No it isn't. There is well worked plan (Dilnot) published by Cameron, to implement a ceiling on total care costs so everyone knows where they stand and some kind of insurance system can begin. iirc the ceiling proposed was £100K but no doubt the Commons can come to a final conclusion on the precise figure.
Why they just don't get on and implement that, at least as a stop gap for, say the next decade, while Hancock prats around reorganizing the health service yet again is a mystery.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
You should always listen to Alastair when he talks about Scotland.
In the summer of 2013 he tipped a plethora of Scottish seats to go SNP at the GE at odds as high as 66/1, it was an extremely profitable set of tips.
He also tipped the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 at 10/1 and then 8/1 on the day of the election, both of which were pooh poohed by one of the Scot Nats on here.
Did not HYUFD make similar correct predictions ? He certainly banged on endlessly about Boris as a great election winner.
Because even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
You should always listen to Alastair when he talks about Scotland.
In the summer of 2013 he tipped a plethora of Scottish seats to go SNP at the GE at odds as high as 66/1, it was an extremely profitable set of tips.
He also tipped the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 at 10/1 and then 8/1 on the day of the election, both of which were pooh poohed by one of the Scot Nats on here.
Did not HYUFD make similar correct predictions ? He certainly banged on endlessly about Boris as a great election winner.
Because even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.
The Democrats in Congress have shown political ineptitude on an almost unprecedented scale. They should have left this alone and allowed the GOP to eat itself from the insides out. They have almost resurrected Trump.
Totally disagree, resurrecting Trump greatly increases the Democrats chances of success for the next 4 years.
With Trump still in the game the GOP will be ripping lumps out of each other for the foreseeable future.
And the Dems still have a bogeyman to keep the crazy wing in line.
Trump won before, do you want to screw Biden because hes not progressive enough so Harris loses to him next time?
So 1-1 then. Difficult conditions but a very poor performance from England today.
Wouldn't it be easier to just toss the coin and award the test to the winner and not bother with the next 5 days.
Don't think that this is going to take 5 days this time but yes, the toss is having way too much influence on these matches. It only take 1 good innings on the first day, Root the first time, Rohit this time, and the game is out of sight for the opposition.
That said these openers making it look pretty easy at the moment.
If India declared now I would give them at least a 95% chance of winning.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
At the moment, the Tories would lose more MPs than Labour would if Scotland went independent. And the SNP don't vote on purely English matters.
Now now, we all understand that Scotland has been returning left-leaning majorities for a very long time. Labour will be hoping to rebuild there; failing that, the SNP bloc is available as a confidence and supply partner, whereas it wouldn't be seen dead voting for the Conservatives. Scotland therefore remains a massive net asset for Labour. It gets much further away from power at Westminster with Scotland gone.
Besides, the SNP may not vote on purely English matters, but the definition of purely English matters is pretty broad (what about any and every piece of legislation that has a potential impact on Barnett consequentials?) Regardless, if the SNP controlled the balance of power then it would certainly be able to install a Labour Prime Minister and pass their budget whilst keeping a straight face.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
You should always listen to Alastair when he talks about Scotland.
In the summer of 2013 he tipped a plethora of Scottish seats to go SNP at the GE at odds as high as 66/1, it was an extremely profitable set of tips.
He also tipped the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 at 10/1 and then 8/1 on the day of the election, both of which were pooh poohed by one of the Scot Nats on here.
Did not HYUFD make similar correct predictions ? He certainly banged on endlessly about Boris as a great election winner.
Because even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.
Wouldn't that be because they are relying upon sense of smell? Ergo in this analogy HYUFD would make a correct prediction due to superior political senses, not luckily?
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
Refusing Scotland another vote when its voters had given an absolute majority to parties standing on a manifesto for a fresh independence referendum would be to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
I assume you will be referring to even more chippy Spaniards then who have refused the Catalans even one independence vote despite consistent Catalan nationalist governments, likely again after the Catalan election today?
So 1-1 then. Difficult conditions but a very poor performance from England today.
Wouldn't it be easier to just toss the coin and award the test to the winner and not bother with the next 5 days.
I don't think that's fair. India will get more than 134 runs in their second innings so the pitch has got some life in it for batting. We just bowled poorly and batted poorly, blaming the toss or the pitch isn't helpful. Why haven't we picked an extra spinner, we knew it was a dusty crease and why are English batsmen so awful at playing on spin after all this time.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
I agree with the header, with one addition. Scotland can't be refused a second referendum forever, so it's a matter of timing. Offering the SNP a referendum at the end of the next Parliament (2029) is an offer they'd find hard to refuse, and is nonetheless close to the "next generation" yardstick that is often applied by opponents of a referendum. Moreover, there is more than one kind of referendum - offering an alternative vote including a loose federation option would force the SNP to go for over 50% for pure separation. They couldn't reasonably refuse the challenge, but the odds are that they'd lose.
One appreciates why the New Zealand Government is coming under pressure re: the lack of vaccinations. The flipside of a successful elimination campaign is that the potential costs of letting the disease re-establish are so huge that finding any cases at all in the community = panic and lockdowns.
NZ and other so far low-prevalence countries may suffer in future as the virus "fills the gaps". No natural immunity - If they don`t vaccinate they`ll be in trouble.
They will start their vaccination program, somewhat belatedly, in the second quarter. They have the AZN, Moderna, Jansen and Novavax vaccines on order. Australia are a bit ahead of them.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
A lot of the unity of the EU was driven by amour-propre and a desire to punish. These are natural responses to someone leaving. I can see England being driven the same factors. For example, would England tolerate a continuation of Barnett differentials over the negotiating period? I doubt it.
I agree with you on Scotland. Like Brexit, a significant percentage of the population would have voted against independence and would feel little enthusiasm for making it work. Its not hard to see differences on currency, on freedom of movement, on whether to ask to stay in the UK SM or try to rejoin the EU SM. Unless these issues are clearly and irrevocably nailed down in the referendum (and they won't be for the same reason, they require the consent of others and are not in the campaigner's gift) there may be something not much short of chaos.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
There is a hole in his [Hancock's] plan so big that it can be seen by a moon-based astronaut with a foggy visor. It has little of substance to say about the crisis in adult social care. The pandemic has taken more than 25,000 lives in care homes and pitilessly underlined the myriad problems in the sector. On the day that he first stood outside Number 10, Boris Johnson declared that he was determined to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”. Since when, no plan has materialised. If he ever really possessed one, he appears to have mislaid it. Or perhaps Dilyn the Downing Street dog has eaten it. Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success.
He makes a case for urgency on the grounds that we need to get on with implementing the lessons from the coronavirus. That sounds reasonable until you remember that the government of which Mr Hancock is a member is led by Boris Johnson. The prime minister keeps resisting demands for a public inquiry on the grounds that we can’t “learn the lessons” until the crisis is over. Embarking on another round of NHS “reform” does not make much sense until we have a complete understanding of what worked and what didn’t during the gravest public health emergency in a century. You can’t put things right until you know precisely what went wrong.
"Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success."
Always the same problem. The old (and, by extension, their expectant heirs) won't pay. The shrinking working age population can't pay. So lofty words are uttered, but nothing is actually done.
Social care policy consists, in crude terms, of rationing the care and hoping that too many people don't moan too loudly. Because the alternative is something like the dementia tax, a policy so catastrophic that it very nearly let Jeremy Corbyn take over. There'll be no repetition of that mistake.
The 'Sunday Black_Rook' is a good deal more attuned to the political realities of the situation than the 'Sunday Rawnsley'.
If Dilyn did indeed eat the plans, it confirms my opinion that he is by far the smartest political operator in the Tory Government. And by far the prettiest.
Smart, Welsh and Sassy.
Dilyn used to be given the Cummings hate-mail to shred.
I wonder what they use now?
"the alternative is something like the dementia tax,"
No it isn't. There is well worked plan (Dilnot) published by Cameron, to implement a ceiling on total care costs so everyone knows where they stand and some kind of insurance system can begin. iirc the ceiling proposed was £100K but no doubt the Commons can come to a final conclusion on the precise figure.
Why they just don't get on and implement that, at least as a stop gap for, say the next decade, while Hancock prats around reorganizing the health service yet again is a mystery.
I cannot see a ramping up of the Welfare state in the next few years, indeed a wider extension of rationing and spending control.
Indeed, apart from bunging sweetheart deals to his mates, surely that tight restriction of spending is the purpose of Hancocks "reforms".
One appreciates why the New Zealand Government is coming under pressure re: the lack of vaccinations. The flipside of a successful elimination campaign is that the potential costs of letting the disease re-establish are so huge that finding any cases at all in the community = panic and lockdowns.
NZ and other so far low-prevalence countries may suffer in future as the virus "fills the gaps". No natural immunity - If they don`t vaccinate they`ll be in trouble.
They will start their vaccination program, somewhat belatedly, in the second quarter. They have the AZN, Moderna, Jansen and Novavax vaccines on order. Australia are a bit ahead of them.
Why didn’t they get on with it during their summer, rather than waiting for their winter to begin vaccinations? It’s looking like a mistake.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
I do not believe the following statement, for which I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in political history.
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
Again, where are the chippy English nationalists meant to be hiding? Boris Johnson certainly isn't one. You can choose to take him at his word (stop laughing at the back, please) and assume that his Unionist rhetoric is sincere, or you can regard him as being in it only for himself, in which case England doesn't come into this. Refusing Scotland another vote wouldn't be about turning Scotland into a colony, it would be about avoiding becoming the next Lord North and passing the hot potato to his successor.
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
Refusing Scotland another vote when its voters had given an absolute majority to parties standing on a manifesto for a fresh independence referendum would be to deny Scots their right to self-determination.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
Stonewalling indefinitely wouldn't be my preference, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the current Government won't do it.
Granting the referendum with conditions, OTOH, seems perfectly reasonable. Think of what happened with the EU referendum. If Cameron had put it off until 2017 and done his homework properly then he might very well have won.
Scottish independence is more complex than that, firstly because the UK didn't exit a 300-year-old, comprehensive political union when it left the EU, and secondly because what we have now and outright secession aren't necessarily the only two options available. If, in our hypothetical scenario, Labour wants the time to present an alternative offer, and have all three options gone over with a fine toothed comb before putting them to the people, then that doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
That's the first condition. The second is a 30 year moratorium on Indyref3 written into the relevant legislation. If Scotland does stay put then there must not be a rolling cycle of SNP election victories followed by rematches. The Union consists of more than just Scotland and the other parties are entitled to a reasonable expectation of stability.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
A lot of the unity of the EU was driven by amour-propre and a desire to punish. These are natural responses to someone leaving. I can see England being driven the same factors. For example, would England tolerate a continuation of Barnett differentials over the negotiating period? I doubt it.
I agree with you on Scotland. Like Brexit, a significant percentage of the population would have voted against independence and would feel little enthusiasm for making it work. Its not hard to see differences on currency, on freedom of movement, on whether to ask to stay in the UK SM or try to rejoin the EU SM. Unless these issues are clearly and irrevocably nailed down in the referendum (and they won't be for the same reason, they require the consent of others and are not in the campaigner's gift) there may be something not much short of chaos.
Is there a UK single market? Given the difficulties the Northern Irish and those in GB who want to send stuff to Northern Ireland are experiencing, at best there's a GB single market, but definitely no UK single market thanks to the Brexit deal.
The Democrats in Congress have shown political ineptitude on an almost unprecedented scale. They should have left this alone and allowed the GOP to eat itself from the insides out. They have almost resurrected Trump.
Biden’s going to struggle to reunite the country with hyper-partisans like Pelosi around.
The whole thing was just political theatre, the Dems should have known they’d struggle to tie Trump directly to the Capitol tilts, in the eyes of sufficient numbers of Republican Senators.
As you say, they should have just ignored it and left a very split GOP.
The GOP has no chance of uniting itself so it's hardly surprising that Biden isn't going to unite the country.
The QAnons and MAGAs aren't interested, nothing will reconcile them but I expect their numbers to diminish .
Sandpit’s comment was essentially the line from Fox news. He’s usually more acute than that.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
Spain's government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government a legal independence referendum in 2017, 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Catalonia has not even been allowed a 'once in a generation' independence referendum as Scotland had in 2014
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
One of the brightest stars of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party apparently believes that if the SNP gets majority in May that there will be an indyref2. It really is that simple.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
A lot of the unity of the EU was driven by amour-propre and a desire to punish. These are natural responses to someone leaving. I can see England being driven the same factors. For example, would England tolerate a continuation of Barnett differentials over the negotiating period? I doubt it.
I agree with you on Scotland. Like Brexit, a significant percentage of the population would have voted against independence and would feel little enthusiasm for making it work. Its not hard to see differences on currency, on freedom of movement, on whether to ask to stay in the UK SM or try to rejoin the EU SM. Unless these issues are clearly and irrevocably nailed down in the referendum (and they won't be for the same reason, they require the consent of others and are not in the campaigner's gift) there may be something not much short of chaos.
Is there a UK single market? Given the difficulties the Northern Irish and those in GB who want to send stuff to Northern Ireland are experiencing, at best there's a GB single market, but definitely no UK single market thanks to the Brexit deal.
Yes, that is a fair point. But would Scotland go down the NI route and seek membership of the EU SM? The problems for Scotland would be much greater with a land border with rUK.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
One of the brightest stars of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party believes that if the SNP gets majority in May that there will be an indyref2. It really is that simple.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
Spain's government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government a legal independence referendum in 2017, 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Catalonia has not even been allowed a 'once in a generation' independence referendum as Scotland had in 2014
You do realise that Scotland is an equal partner in the union with England? It is a nation that entered the union voluntarily. Your endless comparison with Catalonia is comparing apples with pears.
European foreign policy died in Moscow last week. The burial will be held at sea this spring, some 35 fathoms under the Baltic, where a towering Russian vessel called “Fortuna” is laying the final section of the 1,230 kilometer-long Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.
While the end of Europe’s geopolitical ambitions was long in coming, the coup de grâce was a jaw-dropper, if only because it was self-inflicted.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
I do not believe the following statement, for which I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in political history.
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
If you’re going to quote me, don’t partially quote me. The first part of that sentence was important. You have dishonestly misrepresented what I said.
In fairness they have invested heavily in others too. It's when they were getting them that was the issue, not that they don't have contracts for them.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
A lot of the unity of the EU was driven by amour-propre and a desire to punish. These are natural responses to someone leaving. I can see England being driven the same factors. For example, would England tolerate a continuation of Barnett differentials over the negotiating period? I doubt it.
I agree with you on Scotland. Like Brexit, a significant percentage of the population would have voted against independence and would feel little enthusiasm for making it work. Its not hard to see differences on currency, on freedom of movement, on whether to ask to stay in the UK SM or try to rejoin the EU SM. Unless these issues are clearly and irrevocably nailed down in the referendum (and they won't be for the same reason, they require the consent of others and are not in the campaigner's gift) there may be something not much short of chaos.
Is there a UK single market? Given the difficulties the Northern Irish and those in GB who want to send stuff to Northern Ireland are experiencing, at best there's a GB single market, but definitely no UK single market thanks to the Brexit deal.
Yes, that is a fair point. But would Scotland go down the NI route and seek membership of the EU SM? The problems for Scotland would be much greater with a land border with rUK.
The deal we signed on Christmas Eve doesn't work and can't be made to work - hence the calls in NI to scrap it. So by the time we get to an independent Scotland the status quo will already be in the past and it won't be an issue. A land border that functions between the UK and EU will have been resolved and that same model applied to rUK and Scotland.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
Spain's government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government a legal independence referendum in 2017, 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Catalonia has not even been allowed a 'once in a generation' independence referendum as Scotland had in 2014
Which would be relevant is Scotland and Catalonia were comparable. Which they are not.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
One of the lessons of the last 18 months is that lots of things are politically impossible turn out to be perfectly possible, given sufficient chutzpah. They are almost certainly thunderously unwise, especially in the longer term, but they are perfectly possible.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
Spain's government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government a legal independence referendum in 2017, 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Catalonia has not even been allowed a 'once in a generation' independence referendum as Scotland had in 2014
You do realise that Scotland is an equal partner in the union with England? It is a nation that entered the union voluntarily. Your endless comparison with Catalonia is comparing apples with pears.
It voted in 2014 to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
One of the brightest stars of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party believes that if the SNP gets majority in May that there will be an indyref2. It really is that simple.
Looking at how case number fall has levelled off in Scotland I've got a feeling Primary schools won't be going back on the 22nd.
And as a corollary I think England's cases are also starting to level off like Scotland's so school return will also be at risk in England too.
It's open to question. Cases are already at a fairly low level and primaries are generally considered to be less risky. OTOH Sturgeon does have a lot of political capital in the bank in this area. If she decided to put this back out of caution then it probably wouldn't do her any harm.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
A lot of the unity of the EU was driven by amour-propre and a desire to punish. These are natural responses to someone leaving. I can see England being driven the same factors. For example, would England tolerate a continuation of Barnett differentials over the negotiating period? I doubt it.
I agree with you on Scotland. Like Brexit, a significant percentage of the population would have voted against independence and would feel little enthusiasm for making it work. Its not hard to see differences on currency, on freedom of movement, on whether to ask to stay in the UK SM or try to rejoin the EU SM. Unless these issues are clearly and irrevocably nailed down in the referendum (and they won't be for the same reason, they require the consent of others and are not in the campaigner's gift) there may be something not much short of chaos.
Is there a UK single market? Given the difficulties the Northern Irish and those in GB who want to send stuff to Northern Ireland are experiencing, at best there's a GB single market, but definitely no UK single market thanks to the Brexit deal.
Yes, that is a fair point. But would Scotland go down the NI route and seek membership of the EU SM? The problems for Scotland would be much greater with a land border with rUK.
The deal we signed on Christmas Eve doesn't work and can't be made to work - hence the calls in NI to scrap it. So by the time we get to an independent Scotland the status quo will already be in the past and it won't be an issue. A land border that functions between the UK and EU will have been resolved and that same model applied to rUK and Scotland.
Only if the whole UK rejoins the SM, which even Sturgeon has said would mean no grounds for indyref2, staying in the SM was Sturgeon's proposed Brexit 'compromise'
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
I do not believe the following statement, for which I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in political history.
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
If you’re going to quote me, don’t partially quote me. The first part of that sentence was important. You have dishonestly misrepresented what I said.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
One of the brightest stars of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party believes that if the SNP gets majority in May that there will be an indyref2. It really is that simple.
A possible tactic in the Tory armoury is to offer a Ref2 before a 'generation' has passed on the condition that the referendum is on an agreed document negotiated in advance.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
Spain's government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government a legal independence referendum in 2017, 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Catalonia has not even been allowed a 'once in a generation' independence referendum as Scotland had in 2014
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
One of the brightest stars of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party believes that if the SNP gets majority in May that there will be an indyref2. It really is that simple.
Note she says 'SNP majority government' so even Annie Wells says an SNP minority government with Green support would be insufficient for an indyref2.
I know you make the point such views don't matter, but not sure how disregarding the Greens makes any sense for those suggesting the outcome of the elections does matter.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
I do not believe the following statement, for which I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in political history.
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
If you’re going to quote me, don’t partially quote me. The first part of that sentence was important. You have dishonestly misrepresented what I said.
Ah, the Meeks hissy fit. I knew we were due one.
I’m not expecting an apology from you because you are not capable of admitting your intellectual dishonesty. But others can read what I actually wrote in the thread header.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
During the Brexit process, the party being seceded from remained extraordinarily united. I wouldn’t expect rUK to do that well, but I would expect the more visible divisions, as in Brexit, to be among those doing the seceding, as they tried to work out what they wanted to do next.
A lot of the unity of the EU was driven by amour-propre and a desire to punish. These are natural responses to someone leaving. I can see England being driven the same factors. For example, would England tolerate a continuation of Barnett differentials over the negotiating period? I doubt it.
I agree with you on Scotland. Like Brexit, a significant percentage of the population would have voted against independence and would feel little enthusiasm for making it work. Its not hard to see differences on currency, on freedom of movement, on whether to ask to stay in the UK SM or try to rejoin the EU SM. Unless these issues are clearly and irrevocably nailed down in the referendum (and they won't be for the same reason, they require the consent of others and are not in the campaigner's gift) there may be something not much short of chaos.
Is there a UK single market? Given the difficulties the Northern Irish and those in GB who want to send stuff to Northern Ireland are experiencing, at best there's a GB single market, but definitely no UK single market thanks to the Brexit deal.
Yes, that is a fair point. But would Scotland go down the NI route and seek membership of the EU SM? The problems for Scotland would be much greater with a land border with rUK.
The deal we signed on Christmas Eve doesn't work and can't be made to work - hence the calls in NI to scrap it. So by the time we get to an independent Scotland the status quo will already be in the past and it won't be an issue. A land border that functions between the UK and EU will have been resolved and that same model applied to rUK and Scotland.
No, there is no resolution possible. There are choices. May's choice was the whole of the UK to effectively remain within the SM. Boris's choice (other than lying) was to have NI in the EU SM so as to resolve the border with Ireland. That meant it could not be a part of the UK SM. The third choice is to have a hard border between NI and the South. If Scotland opts for the EU SM then a hard border with England would be inevitable. The EU would demand it for the same reasons as they did in NI.
The key pivot moment for the Scottish Play is the May election. Should parties openly pledged to independence win a majority then its politically impossible to deny a vote. Yes, as The Essicks Massiv keeps demanding, the PM could simply ignore the rebellious Scotch. Which by placing Scotland into unwilling colony status just cements even harder the movement towards their departure.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
Spain's government denied the Catalan nationalist majority government a legal independence referendum in 2017, 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Catalonia has not even been allowed a 'once in a generation' independence referendum as Scotland had in 2014
Two quick points (it's Valentine's Day, and I'm in real trouble if I get caught):
(1) Nicola Sturgeon is popular across parts of the broader UK electorate because she offers more convincing opposition to Boris Johnson and the Conservatives than Labour do - she's also in office, and hence a real foil; (2) The idea that the SNP won't use every advantage (parliamentary, and non-parliamentary) to get the best possible concessions for themselves in any independence negotiations is touching; rUK will likely take a utilitarian line based on its own best interests alone, and the milk will sour quickly.
If you thought Brexit was tough - which was breaking a 45-year old regulatory and trading union with emerging federalist structures on top, and the emotion to boot - wait until you try and split a 300-year old country apart that's completely integrated monetarily and fiscally.
You know better than me but I cannot see how if this happens in New Zealand, which has had near to zero people in or out for the best part of a year, we can possibily hope to get to Zero Covid.
Comments
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
I wonder what they use now?
If Scotland went independent and Labour were in power the result would likely be a return of Tory rule in England
Could Boris's best policy be to shoot the fox by allowing a second referendum at a time of his choosing?
The SNP look determined to have a civil war if possible. Does this affect calculations?
The fact that Labour can almost certainly only win with SNP help will be less popular in England than Mr Meeks speculates.
Is it possible that the rest of the UK while admiring Nicola greatly prefer her as a domesticated rather than undomesticated rhinoceros?
COVID-19: Raab says No 10 will not be held to 'arbitrary target' for lifting lockdown after calls to end all restrictions by end of April
http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-raab-says-no-10-will-not-be-held-to-arbitrary-target-for-lifting-lockdown-after-calls-to-end-all-restrictions-by-end-of-april-12217743
Of the EU’s strategy, they said: “It's incredibly naive: These are the hardest manufacturing challenges the world has ever faced.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/after-failing-to-deliver-astrazeneca-rethinks-eu-coronavirus-vaccine-supply-chain/
Under the government’s blueprint to reopen society, adults will initially have only small new freedoms so as to prioritise the return of schools — a move ministers know will raise the coronavirus R number for infections.
Adults will be allowed to sit down outdoors for a coffee or on a park bench with one friend, or with members of their own family — a slight relaxation of the current rule, which permits outdoor meetings only while standing up.
The decision to reopen both primary and secondary schools goes against the advice of some government scientists. But the prime minister was swayed by faster than expected reductions in hospital admissions and infections.
The move to prioritise the return of pupils over reopening the economy will put the prime minister on a collision course with Conservative MPs, 63 of whom signed a letter this weekend demanding the lifting of all restrictions by the end of April.
Downing Street regards a slow easing of social distancing measures as the price it has to pay for schools going back. “Getting pupils in class is the PM’s top priority,” a source said. “We know that will increase infections and we need to move cautiously with everything else.”
A second easing of social distancing rules is expected at the end of next month with the resumption of outdoor sports — such as golf and tennis — for two people from different households.
Further lifting of lockdown measures will depend on the progress of the virus and the vaccination programme. A decision on when to reopen universities is yet to be taken.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/back-to-school-on-march-8-as-johnson-starts-lifting-lockdown-0v5zbz5bt
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1360888791683235842?s=20
If the Prime Minister, and his party in general, were English nationalists then the optimum solution for them would be to give the SNP what it wants and then persuade the Scottish electorate, ever so politely I'm sure, to go away. Scotland falls off and the UK becomes, in effect, the Kingdom of England and little more. Northern Ireland goes soon afterwards; Wales voted for Brexit and contains a lot of Tories. They'd be left with a Parliamentary majority of nearly 150, the next election nailed on and probably the one after that as well.
OTOH, if Labour gets in then it needs Scottish votes so has to work out the best way of keeping hold of them. That might entail giving in to a second independence referendum immediately and keeping their fingers crossed that they can win it; however, they could also point to the fallout of Brexit, say that the Scottish electorate needs to go into this properly informed about what the options are, call a constitutional convention or a royal commission or whatever they want to name it, and play for time. Basically Labour makes a proposal for DevoMax or whatever, and then calls in a panel of boffins to analyse the three competing settlements - status quo, confederacy and independence - and work out the intricacies and potential costs and benefits of each. A plebiscite can be promised at the end of the process. That puts the decision off and forces the Scottish Government to get into the nuts and bolts of its plans at considerable length, rather than have all the details drowned out in the sound and fury of a campaign.
In short, I don't think that Labour can get away with blocking independence outright, but it can slow the entire bandwagon right down, because maybe it'll roll into the mud and get stuck.
Moreover, as @SouthamObserver correctly pointed out, in a Hung Parliament scenario Labour can dare the SNP to vote against it in the meantime. This doesn't mean that the SNP would have to back a Conservative Government instead - it could vote to keep Labour in office but frustrate most of its legislation, or it could force another election - but those alternatives both come with potential costs and might develop not necessarily to its advantage. Secession seems quite likely, but it's far from a done deal.
I try not to comment on bulletins about Scotland penned from Essex, whether HYUFD-land or Meeksiana.
But, this struck me as palpably absurd.
'The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense.'
We have just been through a Brexit process in which exactly the reverse happened.
Just in case Meeks doesn't understand the ABC of politics, parties look for every advantage for their side that they possibly can.
And individual politicians within parties will look for every advantage they possibly can.
With Trump still in the game the GOP will be ripping lumps out of each other for the foreseeable future.
The QAnons and MAGAs aren't interested, nothing will reconcile them but I expect their numbers to diminish .
In the summer of 2013 he tipped a plethora of Scottish seats to go SNP at the GE at odds as high as 66/1, it was an extremely profitable set of tips.
He also tipped the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 at 10/1 and then 8/1 on the day of the election, both of which were pooh poohed by one of the Scot Nats on here.
You might be comfortable with that, I suppose, if you are a chippy English nationalist. (We found out yesterday that lots of Leavers still hanker for empire.) If, however, you have a meaningful attachment to democracy, in such circumstances the Scots would be entitled to the referendum they had just voted for.
No it isn't. There is well worked plan (Dilnot) published by Cameron, to implement a ceiling on total care costs so everyone knows where they stand and some kind of insurance system can begin. iirc the ceiling proposed was £100K but no doubt the Commons can come to a final conclusion on the precise figure.
Why they just don't get on and implement that, at least as a stop gap for, say the next decade, while Hancock prats around reorganizing the health service yet again is a mystery.
Because even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.
Trump won before, do you want to screw Biden because hes not progressive enough so Harris loses to him next time?
That said these openers making it look pretty easy at the moment.
If India declared now I would give them at least a 95% chance of winning.
Besides, the SNP may not vote on purely English matters, but the definition of purely English matters is pretty broad (what about any and every piece of legislation that has a potential impact on Barnett consequentials?) Regardless, if the SNP controlled the balance of power then it would certainly be able to install a Labour Prime Minister and pass their budget whilst keeping a straight face.
‘told’
A bawhair away from requiring oaths of loyalty to the flag.
https://twitter.com/shirkerism/status/1360893973284474882?s=21
YJB's back for the third and fourth tests, they should make him the keeper.
Australia are a bit ahead of them.
I agree with you on Scotland. Like Brexit, a significant percentage of the population would have voted against independence and would feel little enthusiasm for making it work. Its not hard to see differences on currency, on freedom of movement, on whether to ask to stay in the UK SM or try to rejoin the EU SM. Unless these issues are clearly and irrevocably nailed down in the referendum (and they won't be for the same reason, they require the consent of others and are not in the campaigner's gift) there may be something not much short of chaos.
The whole point about democracy is the will of the people. In May we get to find out what that is...
Indeed, apart from bunging sweetheart deals to his mates, surely that tight restriction of spending is the purpose of Hancocks "reforms".
"I expect that Labour would look to continue in government but to conduct Scottish independence negotiations on a cross-party basis. The pressure on all parties to work together in those circumstances would be intense. "
This is crucial to your argument as you then conclude the problem is "more apparent than real".
In fact, the contrary is true -- there is a huge political advantage for the Tories to say, "Labour lost Scotland. We need a Tory Government to look after your interests in the negotiation. Labour have been sleeping with the enemy."
The Tories (like any political party) will be looking for party advantage and they will do and say what is needed to get power.
You are basically saying that the Tories -- when confronted with a huge open goal and SKS badly injured -- will kick the ball off field and say we must wait till Old Keir is back to full playing fitness before the game can continue.
Granting the referendum with conditions, OTOH, seems perfectly reasonable. Think of what happened with the EU referendum. If Cameron had put it off until 2017 and done his homework properly then he might very well have won.
Scottish independence is more complex than that, firstly because the UK didn't exit a 300-year-old, comprehensive political union when it left the EU, and secondly because what we have now and outright secession aren't necessarily the only two options available. If, in our hypothetical scenario, Labour wants the time to present an alternative offer, and have all three options gone over with a fine toothed comb before putting them to the people, then that doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
That's the first condition. The second is a 30 year moratorium on Indyref3 written into the relevant legislation. If Scotland does stay put then there must not be a rolling cycle of SNP election victories followed by rematches. The Union consists of more than just Scotland and the other parties are entitled to a reasonable expectation of stability.
https://twitter.com/ConHome/status/1360846243996524545
Catalonia has not even been allowed a 'once in a generation' independence referendum as Scotland had in 2014
And as a corollary I think England's cases are also starting to level off like Scotland's so school return will also be at risk in England too.
https://twitter.com/anniewellsmsp/status/1360643663399964673?s=21
The decision of course though is for Boris as UK PM not Annie Wells
Yes, I could actually imagine the Tories doing that.
While the end of Europe’s geopolitical ambitions was long in coming, the coup de grâce was a jaw-dropper, if only because it was self-inflicted.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-foreign-policy-rip/
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1360868145871933442
I thought the above link was quite an interesting discussion on “what happens next”.
I’m not convinced about denying a vote - the ref looks winnable for the UK tbh
(1) Nicola Sturgeon is popular across parts of the broader UK electorate because she offers more convincing opposition to Boris Johnson and the Conservatives than Labour do - she's also in office, and hence a real foil;
(2) The idea that the SNP won't use every advantage (parliamentary, and non-parliamentary) to get the best possible concessions for themselves in any independence negotiations is touching; rUK will likely take a utilitarian line based on its own best interests alone, and the milk will sour quickly.
If you thought Brexit was tough - which was breaking a 45-year old regulatory and trading union with emerging federalist structures on top, and the emotion to boot - wait until you try and split a 300-year old country apart that's completely integrated monetarily and fiscally.
https://twitter.com/izzywestbury/status/1360902733121933312