I don't know if it's been discussed already, but I see Roy Greenslade has outed himself as an IRA supporter. It's probably not that big a surprise, but he's still a piece of scum.
I wonder if Boris Johnson will put Greenslade in the House of Lords like he did with Claire Fox?
I had never heard of this Greenslade bloke, but who cares? The Troubles ended 20 years ago, SF are in government in NI.
He's an ex-editor of various newspapers and then a senior bod at the Sunday Times. He then became a Professor teaching a course about the ethics of journalism at City University. One wonders whether the ethics of being a reporter and committed to the cause of terrorism was one of the topics discussed or, indeed, whether journalists have a duty to be transparent etc.
Still I care: I was incensed at Claire Fox getting a peerage (https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/08/04/if-youre-in-a-glasshouse/) and am pretty cross - if not a bit surprised - at the PM today criticising Roy Greenslade for his support for the IRA. It seems that this is utterly unacceptable to the current Tory party unless they become supporters of Boris and Brexit, at which point all criticism ceases and they get elevated to the legislature without any of that tiresome bother of elections - much like terrorists using violence rather than persuasion to get their own way.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
Part of why this Conservative wants to see Scottish independence. 👍
You are not a Conservative, you are a libertarian Brexiteer, much like Tyndall
Wrong I am a Conservative.
What I am not is a conservative.
I'm both.
I know you are and I respect that.
But unlike HYUFD you don't think all Conservatives are conservative do you?
Like @Sean_F excellently put it "Conservatives come in all sorts of shapes and forms."
You wouldn't expel me from the party for being a libertarian Conservative instead of a conservative Conservative would you?
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
Wayhay! Send in the tanks.
You do not seem to be able to wrap your head around the concept of governing with the consent of the governed.
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Sir Keir most popular with the highly educated on high incomes then, Boris most popular with the less well educated on average incomes
Well it looks that way, but actually more high earners like Boris than Keir, it's just the net figure distortion
Nonetheless it backs up the evidence of the 2019 general election when Boris was the first Tory leader since exit poll records began to get a higher share amongst average earners and the working class than he did amongst high earners and the upper middle class
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
More Level 3's £40k+ earners actually like Boris than Starmer, it's the net putaway working it's magic again
The VI difference is 8% and the difference in the gross favourable rating is also 8% and the party VIs are almost the same as the percentage favourable for each leader.
You, @Philip_Thompson and OGH have convinced me to make this part of my betting metrics from now on. The net rating for someone as polarising as Boris doesn't seem as useful because he's got such a low level of DKs.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Sir Keir most popular with the highly educated on high incomes then, Boris most popular with the less well educated on average incomes
Well it looks that way, but actually more high earners like Boris than Keir, it's just the net figure distortion
Nonetheless it backs up the evidence of the 2019 general election when Boris was the first Tory leader since exit poll records began to get a higher share amongst average earners and the working class than he did amongst high earners and the upper middle class
Yes. Only amongst student types does Sir Keir lead
Wait for the nutjobs to start their conspiracy theories about big pharma pressuring the French government to change it's policy or the UN or some other "world order" type organisation to be behind this about turn.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
Wayhay! Send in the tanks.
You do not seem to be able to wrap your head around the concept of governing with the consent of the governed.
That is what we elect the UK Government for, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster after all and Scots voted against independence in the once in a generation 2014 referendum, tough.
In fact only 43% want independence now anyway, even less than 2014
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Sir Keir most popular with the highly educated on high incomes then, Boris most popular with the less well educated on average incomes
Well it looks that way, but actually more high earners like Boris than Keir, it's just the net figure distortion
Nonetheless it backs up the evidence of the 2019 general election when Boris was the first Tory leader since exit poll records began to get a higher share amongst average earners and the working class than he did amongst high earners and the upper middle class
Yes. Only amongst student types does Sir Keir lead
Given the thoroughly rotten year they have had, with Sir Keir cheering enthusiastically, I wonder how many young voters would actually turn out for him.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Sir Keir most popular with the highly educated on high incomes then, Boris most popular with the less well educated on average incomes
Well it looks that way, but actually more high earners like Boris than Keir, it's just the net figure distortion
Nonetheless it backs up the evidence of the 2019 general election when Boris was the first Tory leader since exit poll records began to get a higher share amongst average earners and the working class than he did amongst high earners and the upper middle class
Yes. Only amongst student types does Sir Keir lead
No as Starmer also leads amongst higher earners earning over £40,000 a year.
Corbyn only led amongst student types in 2019, Starmer has now added high earning professionals to that, at least on net favourability terms
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
More Level 3's £40k+ earners actually like Boris than Starmer, it's the net putaway working it's magic again
The VI difference is 8% and the difference in the gross favourable rating is also 8% and the party VIs are almost the same as the percentage favourable for each leader.
You, @Philip_Thompson and OGH have convinced me to make this part of my betting metrics from now on. The net rating for someone as polarising as Boris doesn't seem as useful because he's got such a low level of DKs.
Yes, I am convinced actually that it is the Gross favourables that are important, & that the net's are big red herrings.
Surely the DK's are most likely to be the non voters? Using net figures assumes 100% of those polled will vote, I think?
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Sir Keir most popular with the highly educated on high incomes then, Boris most popular with the less well educated on average incomes
Well it looks that way, but actually more high earners like Boris than Keir, it's just the net figure distortion
Nonetheless it backs up the evidence of the 2019 general election when Boris was the first Tory leader since exit poll records began to get a higher share amongst average earners and the working class than he did amongst high earners and the upper middle class
Yes. Only amongst student types does Sir Keir lead
No as Starmer also leads amongst higher earners earning over £40,000 a year.
Corbyn only led amongst student types in 2019, Starmer has now added high earning professionals to that, at least on net favourability terms
Boris leads 152 to 135 amongst high earning professionals
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
For the umpteenth time Canada didn't "allow" a second referendum after fifteen years. The Quebec voters took fifteen years to elect another government that wanted another referendum. 🙄
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
No evidence for that at all, Catalonia of course remains part of Spain having had no referendums at all.
Any indyref2 would require devomax etc to ensure a No victory and if the government is not ready to do that then pointless allowing it
Again the Canadian federal government did not "allow" the Quebec referendum. The Quebec government had it on their own timeline that they chose themselves. Do you understand that point, yes or no?
The UK is not Spain.
No sane and stable democracy can allow TWO referendums on the same subject within less than ten years: that subject being the break up of the nation. By your recipe the Nats should be allowed to call a vote whenever they like, if they have a majority. Why not one a year until 2024? You can have no logical objection. Six every decade? Until they win? What is your logical problem with that? Or do they only get one per election? Where in the law books does it say that?
You are making it up.
Allowing endless referendums is a recipe for perpetual instability, and economic chaos. The right to allow referendums was reserved to Westminster, in the Scotland Act, precisely for this reason. A referendum on secession is so huge it must be a very rare event, approved by all four nations of the UK, through MPs representing their voters, in the Commons. This, of course, includes Scottish MPs. This is not England allowing a referendum, or not, this is the Union, the UK, democratically deciding in its supreme house of parliament.
If Sturgeon wins her majority and calls for a new indyref, let Boris put it to the Commons for a Free Vote, and let the MPs of the entire United Kingdom decide. That is British democracy
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Doesn't this situation create serious issues for existing rollout plans? To what extent do some of these EU countries even have serious rollout plans? Or does the scarcity of supply just mean all the existing plans are out of the window?
In the UK you don't get the impression that our rollout plans are based on whatever random vaccine happens to be available from month to month. We are clearly pretty confident in our supplies, but also seem to be building in back-up planning for occasional disruption. And even seem to be planning for the second generation jabs if needed later in the year.
I wonder if one of the reasons that many EU countries are continuing with the "two jab" policy (leading to much of the supply such as it is being held in reserve) is that they have no confidence that the supplies will be available for the second jab when needed otherwise.
Wait for the nutjobs to start their conspiracy theories about big pharma pressuring the French government to change it's policy or the UN or some other "world order" type organisation to be behind this about turn.
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Sir Keir most popular with the highly educated on high incomes then, Boris most popular with the less well educated on average incomes
Well it looks that way, but actually more high earners like Boris than Keir, it's just the net figure distortion
Nonetheless it backs up the evidence of the 2019 general election when Boris was the first Tory leader since exit poll records began to get a higher share amongst average earners and the working class than he did amongst high earners and the upper middle class
Yes. Only amongst student types does Sir Keir lead
No as Starmer also leads amongst higher earners earning over £40,000 a year.
Corbyn only led amongst student types in 2019, Starmer has now added high earning professionals to that, at least on net favourability terms
Boris leads 152 to 135 amongst high earning professionals
On a net favourability basis though Starmer is preferred amongst high earning professionals, that was not the case in 2019 when Boris led Corbyn amongst higher earners on a net as well as absolute basis
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Oh and the UK was never "granted" a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. It was a consequence of being one of the main victorious powers of World War II and key founder member.
Q3. To what extent do you think favourably or unfavourably towards the following political figures?
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer
Sir Keir most popular with the highly educated on high incomes then, Boris most popular with the less well educated on average incomes
Well it looks that way, but actually more high earners like Boris than Keir, it's just the net figure distortion
Nonetheless it backs up the evidence of the 2019 general election when Boris was the first Tory leader since exit poll records began to get a higher share amongst average earners and the working class than he did amongst high earners and the upper middle class
Yes. Only amongst student types does Sir Keir lead
No as Starmer also leads amongst higher earners earning over £40,000 a year.
Corbyn only led amongst student types in 2019, Starmer has now added high earning professionals to that, at least on net favourability terms
Boris leads 152 to 135 amongst high earning professionals
On a net favourability basis though Starmer is preferred amongst high earning professionals
Yes, but I am a net denier! It is absurd to consider someone more popular when fewer people like them, in my opinion anyway. Especially when 30% of those asked aren't going to vote
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
HYUFD, you are making the same arguments as the SNP about the status of the UK and you are just as wrong as they are. If Scotland became independent it would in law be a new country and the UK would continue in being. Yes, it might lead to agitation from India, Japan etc over the Security Council seat but there would be nothing they could actually do about it.
In the USSR the situation was somewhat different because the RSSR declared independence before the USSR was formally abolished. England wouldn’t do that from the UK.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
You're ridiculous. There is no "case", the constitution of the UN is clear and only votes can change it and the UK can veto any vote that doesn't recognise England as successor.
Besides which if Scotland goes independent the UK would still exist, just as it did when Ireland did. Even if Scotland, NI and Wales all went independent, the UK would still exist. Even if its just England. The UK could rename itself to being England but it wouldn't just be a successor state, it would legally be the same state.
The Act of Union integrated Scotland wholesale into the UK, it did not keep the Scotland and England separate. Scottish independence doesn't end the UK, even if the name becomes illogical.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
Russia was accepted unanimously and without objection as the successor state of the USSR when it made that claim in 1990.
It is highly likely though objections would be made in the UN General Assembly if England alone were to make the claim to be treated as the successor state of the UK if the UK broke up and I suspect Russia and China and maybe even France too would raise objections as well amongst the other P5, none are exactly great friends to us. Only the US of the P5 would likely certainly back England's continued permanent Security Council membership.
The loss of part of its territory should not impact the terms of the UKs membership of any international body, including the UN, any more than when most of Ireland broke away. That did not impact the UKs membership of any international bodies of the time. The United Kingdom was formed as a union of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. The Kingdom of Great Britain that was formed nearly a century prior but was not the (capital U) United Kingdom.
1707 -
“ That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.”
1800 -
“ That it be the first Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the Name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; (my emphasis) and that the Royal Stile and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom and its Dependencies, and also the Ensigns, Armorial Flags and Banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint.”
The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 simply added in the “Northern” in front of “Ireland” but the nation is the same.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
Japan and Germany are essentially restricted by their constitutions to have "defensive" militaries. India is extremely complicated by the situation with Pakistan. And I don't know what having a "large" military has to do with anything. The UK remains a major military power and one of the few with global reach (albeit not to the extent that it did).
And the fact is that the UK's position is guaranteed by the UN constitution. England/Wales/NI would obviously be the successor state and would retain its status within the UN.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Oh and the UK was never "granted" a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. It was a consequence of being one of the main victorious powers of World War II and key founder member.
With most of the British Empire still in place at the time, including India, as France still had most of its Empire too in North Africa etc
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
Russia was accepted unanimously and without objection as the successor state of the USSR when it made that claim in 1990.
It is highly likely though objections would be made in the UN General Assembly if England alone were to make the claim to be treated as the successor state of the UK if the UK broke up and I suspect Russia and China and maybe even France too would raise objections as well amongst the other P5, none are exactly great friends to us. Only the US of the P5 would likely certainly back England's continued permanent Security Council membership.
No you're inventing garbage.
Neither Russia nor China have an incentive to raise an issue as they both have their own issues in the past they don't want raking over; China being the successor to the Republic of China, and Russia being the successor to the USSR.
Besides all that would need to be done is to release Scotland from the UK, like was done when Ireland went independent, while keeping the UK as a state that no longer had Scotland in it. Nations can release bits of themselves without ceasing to exist, nations can rename without ceasing to exist. France has lost a huge chunk of its landmass since the UN was founded, including Algeria, it never lost its claim to the UNSC seat as a result. The UK could continue as a state even if it just had England as its land.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
HYUFD, you are making the same arguments as the SNP about the status of the UK and you are just as wrong as they are. If Scotland became independent it would in law be a new country and the UK would continue in being. Yes, it might lead to agitation from India, Japan etc over the Security Council seat but there would be nothing they could actually do about it.
In the USSR the situation was somewhat different because the RSSR declared independence before the USSR was formally abolished. England wouldn’t do that from the UK.
Potentially there is if they objected as they did not when the USSR's seat ceased to exist and Russia took its place, once the UK's seat ceased to exist
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
HYUFD seems to be defining "successor state" in the context of the UN. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason for there being 5 permanent members of the Security Council isn't because of some magical properties held by the number 5. It is because China,USSR,USA,UK and France were all made permanent members under the UN constitution. And so there were 5. It wasn't that the UN was written to have 5 permanent members, and then they had a discussion about which lucky countries should fill the spots.
There's occasionally debate about whether the number of permanent members should be expanded. But that's different to saying that 5 are set in stone, and somehow the demise of the UK would lead to competition to ensure there status as one of the magic 5.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
You're wrong. The UK has the veto, end of story.
The UK doesn't cease to exist just because parts of the UK go independent, just as France never ceased to exist just because parts of France went independent. The UK will be the continuity state, there is no doubt about that.
No successor state would have to be chosen. When was France chosen to be successor over Algeria? It wasn't. The UK would continue to exist, even if it renames itself England, as a continuous still existing state.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
Japan and Germany are essentially restricted by their constitutions to have "defensive" militaries. India is extremely complicated by the situation with Pakistan. And I don't know what having a "large" military has to do with anything. The UK remains a major military power and one of the few with global reach (albeit not to the extent that it did).
And the fact is that the UK's position is guaranteed by the UN constitution. England/Wales/NI would obviously be the successor state and would retain its status within the UN.
You can argue about it but the fact is all those nations would have strong claims.
The UK would cease to exist so its position would no longer be guaranteed if Scotland broke away
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
Thank you for making this point. I was half-tempted to make a similar intervention in this futile argument myself but you've saved me the trouble.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
Japan and Germany are essentially restricted by their constitutions to have "defensive" militaries. India is extremely complicated by the situation with Pakistan. And I don't know what having a "large" military has to do with anything. The UK remains a major military power and one of the few with global reach (albeit not to the extent that it did).
And the fact is that the UK's position is guaranteed by the UN constitution. England/Wales/NI would obviously be the successor state and would retain its status within the UN.
You can argue about it but the fact is all those nations would have strong claims.
The UK would cease to exist so its position would no longer be guaranteed if Scotland broke away
They would not have any claims whatsoever and the UK would not cease to exist.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
None of this is true. 🤦♂️
He did qualify it with 'arguably', and he is arguing (incorrectly) that this is indeed the case. So perhaps his statement was true
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
None of this is true. 🤦♂️
As I said the other day - would be the site’s best poster if he only had the moral courage to admit when he’s in the wrong, rather than painting himself into ever more bizarre corners.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
None of this is true. 🤦♂️
He did qualify it with 'arguably', and he is arguing (incorrectly) that this is indeed the case. So perhaps his statement was true
Well the arguably bit is argued wrong and as for the claim "The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707" . . . no it was not!
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
It doesn't matter, that's not how states work.
The UK would still exist even if it was just England. Scotland would be a new state, the state called the United Kingdom would not have ceased to exist it would continue to exist.
The UK would only cease to exist if England chose not to continue to be the UK, otherwise Scotland would go independent and the UK would continue without Scotland.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
HYUFD seems to be defining "successor state" in the context of the UN. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason for there being 5 permanent members of the Security Council isn't because of some magical properties held by the number 5. It is because China,USSR,USA,UK and France were all made permanent members under the UN constitution. And so there were 5. It wasn't that the UN was written to have 5 permanent members, and then they had a discussion about which lucky countries should fill the spots.
There's occasionally debate about whether the number of permanent members should be expanded. But that's different to saying that 5 are set in stone, and somehow the demise of the UK would lead to competition to ensure there status as one of the magic 5.
Indeed, when I was at UNSCOM, going to the Security Council on a seemingly daily basis, there was some discussion of the UK and French seats being combined into an EU seat to make way for Japan or India. But it was never more than discussion - and a little pressure on the UK and France - as everyone knew that both held independent vetoes.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
HYUFD seems to be defining "successor state" in the context of the UN. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason for there being 5 permanent members of the Security Council isn't because of some magical properties held by the number 5. It is because China,USSR,USA,UK and France were all made permanent members under the UN constitution. And so there were 5. It wasn't that the UN was written to have 5 permanent members, and then they had a discussion about which lucky countries should fill the spots.
There's occasionally debate about whether the number of permanent members should be expanded. But that's different to saying that 5 are set in stone, and somehow the demise of the UK would lead to competition to ensure there status as one of the magic 5.
If the UK ceased to exist then it would no longer be a permanent member of the UN by default, especially as is likely objections would be raised by other members to England alone taking its place
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
Japan and Germany are essentially restricted by their constitutions to have "defensive" militaries. India is extremely complicated by the situation with Pakistan. And I don't know what having a "large" military has to do with anything. The UK remains a major military power and one of the few with global reach (albeit not to the extent that it did).
And the fact is that the UK's position is guaranteed by the UN constitution. England/Wales/NI would obviously be the successor state and would retain its status within the UN.
You can argue about it but the fact is all those nations would have strong claims.
The UK would cease to exist so its position would no longer be guaranteed if Scotland broke away
Why do you keep going on about "claims". There is no claim. The UK's position in the UN is written within the UN charter. If for some reason the UK chose to withdraw from the UN there would then be 4 permanent members. There wouldn't be a requirement to add another permanent member to make up the numbers.
Equally the UN could choose to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council. Then there would be 6, or 7, or 8. But all the "leading candidates" that you cite have issues which make that unlikely. Mostly that they don't aspire to have militaries with global reach that is arguably a pre-requisite of the job.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
HYUFD seems to be defining "successor state" in the context of the UN. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason for there being 5 permanent members of the Security Council isn't because of some magical properties held by the number 5. It is because China,USSR,USA,UK and France were all made permanent members under the UN constitution. And so there were 5. It wasn't that the UN was written to have 5 permanent members, and then they had a discussion about which lucky countries should fill the spots.
There's occasionally debate about whether the number of permanent members should be expanded. But that's different to saying that 5 are set in stone, and somehow the demise of the UK would lead to competition to ensure there status as one of the magic 5.
Indeed, when I was at UNSCOM, going to the Security Council on a seemingly daily basis, there was some discussion of the UK and French seats being combined into an EU seat to make way for Japan or India. But it was never more than discussion - and a little pressure on the UK and France - as everyone knew that both held independent vetoes.
Still unlikely to happen but ironically Brexit has made it more likely. Would take France agreeing to it and they won't any time soon, but somewhat more sense for the EU to become the successor to France than to voluntarily give up 2 vetoes for the sake of 1.
I doubt it will happen any time soon though. The French are proud.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
None of this is true. 🤦♂️
He did qualify it with 'arguably', and he is arguing (incorrectly) that this is indeed the case. So perhaps his statement was true
Well the arguably bit is argued wrong and as for the claim "The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707" . . . no it was not!
And, for the purposes of the UN, it really is immaterial how the UK came into existence. (I was joking).
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
HYUFD seems to be defining "successor state" in the context of the UN. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason for there being 5 permanent members of the Security Council isn't because of some magical properties held by the number 5. It is because China,USSR,USA,UK and France were all made permanent members under the UN constitution. And so there were 5. It wasn't that the UN was written to have 5 permanent members, and then they had a discussion about which lucky countries should fill the spots.
There's occasionally debate about whether the number of permanent members should be expanded. But that's different to saying that 5 are set in stone, and somehow the demise of the UK would lead to competition to ensure there status as one of the magic 5.
If the UK ceased to exist then it would no longer be a permanent member of the UN by default, especially as is likely objections would be raised by other members to England alone taking its place
What part of the UK would not cease to exist are you struggling with?
Even if Scotland, Wales and NI go independent the UK still exists as a state. Just as France still exists after losing lots of its land. Those lands were integrated into a single state and can be released without disbanding the UK.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Buying earphones on expenses is fair enough. After all, she is an MP and a very senior one, and she doesn’t live alone. She will hear lots of things that need to be kept confidential. From that point of view, I wouldn’t even have a problem with them being top of the range. Same with any MP. I want them to have the tech to do their job, and do it well, and I don’t mind paying for that.
But if she wants them personalised, she pays that extra herself. That’s what looks bad here (if it’s true).
Just as, my school gives me a laptop. It’s not top of the range but it’s OK. It does the job. If I want something bells and whistles, which will dance when I command it to and I use for things other than work, I would expect to pay for it myself.
Getting your Airpods engraved at Apple is free.
I take it that 'airpods' is some sort of apparatus and not modern slang for testicles?
They are headphones for people who want to look like Andy Capp but with a dog-end in each ear. It also helps if they have too much money and little common sense...
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1707. As @DougSeal demonstrated upthread. That’s 94 years before the United Kingdom came into being.
Why do I bother? You don’t change your mind merely because you’ve been proven wrong.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
Japan and Germany are essentially restricted by their constitutions to have "defensive" militaries. India is extremely complicated by the situation with Pakistan. And I don't know what having a "large" military has to do with anything. The UK remains a major military power and one of the few with global reach (albeit not to the extent that it did).
And the fact is that the UK's position is guaranteed by the UN constitution. England/Wales/NI would obviously be the successor state and would retain its status within the UN.
You can argue about it but the fact is all those nations would have strong claims.
The UK would cease to exist so its position would no longer be guaranteed if Scotland broke away
Why do you keep going on about "claims". There is no claim. The UK's position in the UN is written within the UN charter. If for some reason the UK chose to withdraw from the UN there would then be 4 permanent members. There wouldn't be a requirement to add another permanent member to make up the numbers.
Equally the UN could choose to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council. Then there would be 6, or 7, or 8. But all the "leading candidates" that you cite have issues which make that unlikely. Mostly that they don't aspire to have militaries with global reach that is arguably a pre-requisite of the job.
One of the reasons expansion does not happen is "where do you stop?". Add those who have most pushed for it before (Japan, India, Brazil) and you have 3 Asian, 3 European, and 2 Americas members. Then the Africans say "What about us?" and you get into a dog fight between Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt and others. And if you add India, Pakistan says ... And so on.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
It doesn't matter, that's not how states work.
The UK would still exist even if it was just England. Scotland would be a new state, the state called the United Kingdom would not have ceased to exist it would continue to exist.
The UK would only cease to exist if England chose not to continue to be the UK, otherwise Scotland would go independent and the UK would continue without Scotland.
No it wouldn't, if Scotland left there would be no other Kingdoms left for England to unite with.
So the successor state would have to be called England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or just the Kingdom of England and Wales if Northern Ireland left too
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up it would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, the seat was granted to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, not to England alone. A successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
This makes little sense, and even less so when you suggest that Japan and Germany of all countries would be in a position to take up a permanent seat.
Of course it does, Japan and Germany only did not get a permanent seat as it lost WW2. India now it is no longer part of the British Empire would also have a strong case to permanent membership as an independent nation as the second most populous nation on earth with a large military
Japan and Germany are essentially restricted by their constitutions to have "defensive" militaries. India is extremely complicated by the situation with Pakistan. And I don't know what having a "large" military has to do with anything. The UK remains a major military power and one of the few with global reach (albeit not to the extent that it did).
And the fact is that the UK's position is guaranteed by the UN constitution. England/Wales/NI would obviously be the successor state and would retain its status within the UN.
You can argue about it but the fact is all those nations would have strong claims.
The UK would cease to exist so its position would no longer be guaranteed if Scotland broke away
Why do you keep going on about "claims". There is no claim. The UK's position in the UN is written within the UN charter. If for some reason the UK chose to withdraw from the UN there would then be 4 permanent members. There wouldn't be a requirement to add another permanent member to make up the numbers.
Equally the UN could choose to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council. Then there would be 6, or 7, or 8. But all the "leading candidates" that you cite have issues which make that unlikely. Mostly that they don't aspire to have militaries with global reach that is arguably a pre-requisite of the job.
I would have thought a more pertinent problem would be that it would be even more difficult to get resolutions through the SC due to the number of possible vetoes. It’s hard enough already.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
It doesn't matter, that's not how states work.
The UK would still exist even if it was just England. Scotland would be a new state, the state called the United Kingdom would not have ceased to exist it would continue to exist.
The UK would only cease to exist if England chose not to continue to be the UK, otherwise Scotland would go independent and the UK would continue without Scotland.
No it wouldn't, if Scotland left there would be no other Kingdoms left for England to unite with.
So the successor state would have to be called England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or just the Kingdom of England and Wales if Northern Ireland left
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the Kingdom, not England! 🤦♂️
England would not be a successor state, it would be a continuity state.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
It doesn't even matter if it did. The UK's position in the UN isn't defined by its internal constitutional arrangements! We could become a Republic, therefore cease to be a "Kingdom" ("United" or otherwise) - and still retain our status at the UN.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
Of course England itself is a union of several kingdoms - dating from 871 I can think of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria, but you could add Bernicia, Kent, Cornwalum and Cumberland to that list.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
That is because people are going to give other independence parties their second vote. Last time they had nearly a million on list but due to winning most on constituency seats they got something like 4 list seats. So 800000 wasted votes. If they all went to another independence party they would get probably 20-30 extra seats.
Stupid voting system.
FPTP works. If it gives the SNP a bigger majority then so be it if that's what the people voted for. Smaller parties should sort themselves out and get more popular.
Having seen both voting systems in action now which do you prefer now.
Is it what they voted for?
On just the constituency seats in 2016, the SNP got 80% of the seats on 46% of the vote. I don't think people really did vote for that level of dominance, although clearly they wanted the SNP to be in charge... which they are.
If recent events have shown nothing else, even if you're an SNP fan, it's that the SNP need some effective holding to account on some things, else there's a danger that the politics of Scotland is nothing more than the internal politics of the SNP. That isn't made easier if opponents barely exist in the Scottish Parliament, which is what you'd be looking at for sure.
Er, you're forgetting that the list and constituency results are interdependent under the modified d'Hondt system, which then promptly penalised the SNP on the list vote for doing so well on the constituency vote - this is not a buig but a feature courtesy of Messrs Dewar (and Wallace IIRC). It's almost as anomalous as FPTP, only in the reverse direction (and not so bad, admittedly).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm simply pointing out that, on a pure FPTP system, the SNP would not just have a majority... they'd barely have any opposition (other than internal opposition) at all.
Even if you want to avoid hung Parliaments, that level of dominance just can't be healthy.
But we don't have FPTP in Scotland - except for Westminster. But I've had my dinner and half a bottle of red and can't be bothered to discuss the Conservative and Unionist Party of the UK (sic).
Agreed- comedy is the only thing improved by several drinks.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
It doesn't matter, that's not how states work.
The UK would still exist even if it was just England. Scotland would be a new state, the state called the United Kingdom would not have ceased to exist it would continue to exist.
The UK would only cease to exist if England chose not to continue to be the UK, otherwise Scotland would go independent and the UK would continue without Scotland.
No it wouldn't, if Scotland left there would be no other Kingdoms left for England to unite with.
So the successor state would have to be called England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or just the Kingdom of England and Wales if Northern Ireland left too
Just make the Prince of WAles the King of Wales. Problem sorted.
If they can change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor ...
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
Of course England itself is a union of several kingdoms - dating from 871 I can think of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria, but you could add Bernicia, Kent, Cornwalum and Cumberland to that list.
I think Boris would love to be Bretwalda instead of PM.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
Seriously, this is ytour argiment against Scottish independence in a nutshell - that the UK might lose its Security Council place if it becomes one Kingdom?
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Didn’t they have to assume responsibility for all the sovereign debt as well?😉
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
It could only rename itself as it still united the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, even if the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland left too there would be no Kingdoms left to unite.
If Scotland left there could logically not be a Kingdom of Great Britain either as Scotland is a key part of the island of Great Britain.
The Kingdom of England would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom on any definition
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
Seriously, this is ytour argiment against Scottish independence in a nutshell - that the UK might lose its Security Council place if it becomes one Kingdom?
Don’t complain. It’s better than his usual idea of shooting you all.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
That completely contradicts what you just said the post before, when you claimed the kingdoms of Scotland and England remained. You literally said they were the only kingdoms 'left in the UK', which is categorically untrue. You cannot spin 'the unity of the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of Engliand' as the same thing when you just referred to them as separate entities 'left' in the UK.
You really are having some fun when you aren't even pretending to keep consistency from post to post. Make it a bit harder for people at least, you know that is the game.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
Again the Kingdom became Great Britain, not Scotland and England which are internal boundaries not international ones.
If Scotland goes independent it will not be a simple matter of dissolving the 1707 Act of Union like repealing the European Communities Act. Scotland whether Kingdom or Republic would need to be created as it does not exist currently.
The UK would continue to exist, just minus Scotland. It doesn't matter how it was formed, that is our own internal politics.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
It could only rename itself as it still united the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, even if the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland left too there would be no Kingdoms left to unite.
If Scotland left there could logically not be a Kingdom of Great Britain either as Scotland is a key part of the island of Great Britain.
The Kingdom of England is therefore no longer a United Kingdom on any definition
Answer a simple question. If we abolished the Monarchy, would our Security Council seat become under threat?
Because that is the logical implication of your bizarre (and inaccurate, but that is irrelevant) focus on the UK's position being dependent on being a Union of more than one Kingdom.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Didn’t they have to assume responsibility for all the sovereign debt as well?😉
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
You don’t change your mind merely because you’ve been proven wrong.
Never become a judge.
He isn't, he's become a politician. It's a bonus in that profession.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
It could only rename itself as it still united the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, even if the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland left too there would be no Kingdoms left to unite.
If Scotland left there could logically not be a Kingdom of Great Britain either as Scotland is a key part of the island of Great Britain.
The Kingdom of England would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom on any definition
There are no "Kingdoms" to unite today
The United Kingdom is a single united solitary kingdom, not multiple kingdoms. Its what the name means! It isn't the United Kingdoms, it is the United Kingdom.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
Seriously, this is ytour argiment against Scottish independence in a nutshell - that the UK might lose its Security Council place if it becomes one Kingdom?
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
Seriously, this is ytour argiment against Scottish independence in a nutshell - that the UK might lose its Security Council place if it becomes one Kingdom?
Plus we would also fall from the 5th largest economy as the UK to only the 7th largest economy as England alone
Sort of related, I see Tim Marshall is following up his excellent 'Prisoners of Geography' book on geopolitics, with a title out in a month on 'The power of geography'. He's a good writer, should be worth a browse.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
If we had relied upon opinion polls as an indicator of whether or not to hold a referendum there would never have been a Brexit vote.
Why are you so afraid of an Independence vote if you are so sure the Unionists would win?
Yes, referendums are unpredictable, which is even more reason to refuse an indyref2 and respect the 'once in a generation' 2014 vote.
As a non Tory you are entitled to your opinion but we Tories have a majority and we will say a firm no and refuse a legal indyref2 as we are entitled to do under the Scotland Act 1998
And thereby make the eventual loss in a referendum all the more likely.
If you were to grant the referendum and fight a positive campaign on the benefits of unionism you may stand a chance. By refusing a referendum you just make it all the more likely that Scotland will eventually vote for independence.
Rubbish, it is SNP appeasers like you who will give in to the SNP at every opportunity and allow them constant referendums until they win who make independence far more likely. 2014 was a once in a generation referendum, end of conversation, that means no legal indyref2 until at least 15 to 20 years after the first, much as Canada only allowed Quebec a second independence referendum in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. A gap that was long enough for the second referendum to settle the matter as a genuine generation had elapsed, even if No only narrowly won.
For the umpteenth time Canada didn't "allow" a second referendum after fifteen years. The Quebec voters took fifteen years to elect another government that wanted another referendum. 🙄
Had the Canadians tried to tell the Québécois they weren't allowed another referendum then the second referendum when held won have been won handsomely by Yes. Instead Yes lost it despite calling the referendum on their own timescale which closed the issue.
No evidence for that at all, Catalonia of course remains part of Spain having had no referendums at all.
Any indyref2 would require devomax etc to ensure a No victory and if the government is not ready to do that then pointless allowing it
Again the Canadian federal government did not "allow" the Quebec referendum. The Quebec government had it on their own timeline that they chose themselves. Do you understand that point, yes or no?
The UK is not Spain.
No sane and stable democracy can allow TWO referendums on the same subject within less than ten years: that subject being the break up of the nation. By your recipe the Nats should be allowed to call a vote whenever they like, if they have a majority. Why not one a year until 2024? You can have no logical objection. Six every decade? Until they win? What is your logical problem with that? Or do they only get one per election? Where in the law books does it say that?
You are making it up.
Allowing endless referendums is a recipe for perpetual instability, and economic chaos. The right to allow referendums was reserved to Westminster, in the Scotland Act, precisely for this reason. A referendum on secession is so huge it must be a very rare event, approved by all four nations of the UK, through MPs representing their voters, in the Commons. This, of course, includes Scottish MPs. This is not England allowing a referendum, or not, this is the Union, the UK, democratically deciding in its supreme house of parliament.
If Sturgeon wins her majority and calls for a new indyref, let Boris put it to the Commons for a Free Vote, and let the MPs of the entire United Kingdom decide. That is British democracy
I think that this is a compelling argument but it is not a winning one.
The peoples of the UK are entitled to assume that their lives will not be continuously disrupted and their politics distracted by the wishes of a small part of the whole; that must be right. But if that cohesive small part, in this case the country of Scotland, votes by a majority for parties that want a referendum then I really don't see how it can be refused. To do so is both undemocratic and counter-productive because it will only stir up the people of that small part even more and the denial of democratic rights leads to undemocratic means being used as we saw all too painfully in Northern Ireland.
Of course if they persist in these requests then there may come a point when rUK thinks that they might have a referendum about whether they want to stay in union with these annoying Scots and that too would be their choice. That is one of the risks that Scotland is taking.
If there is a stronger unionist than me on this board I have yet to identify them. I strongly believe that another independence referendum is the exact opposite of what Scotland needs right now, trying to rebuild an economy after the disaster of Covid. I will vote accordingly. But I respect the right of the people of Scotland to choose and I would urge unionists in other parts of the UK to do the same in the fervent hope that that way we remain one of the most successful unions in history.
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
Seriously, this is ytour argiment against Scottish independence in a nutshell - that the UK might lose its Security Council place if it becomes one Kingdom?
Plus we would also fall from the 5th largest economy as the UK to only the 7th largest economy as England alone
And that matters... why?
Sorry Scotland, you can't be independent because it would reduce our status! (of course, Scotland being such a drag on the UK Treasury, it could lead to a significant appreciation in the value of the £ which might push us back up the list )
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Yes the state can rename itself. So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland renamed itself to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon Irish independence. The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist, the UK of GB and NI was not a successor state to the UK of GB and I it was the same state.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
It could only rename itself as it still united the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, even if the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland left too there would be no Kingdoms left to unite.
If Scotland left there could logically not be a Kingdom of Great Britain either as Scotland is a key part of the island of Great Britain.
The Kingdom of England would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom on any definition
There are no "Kingdoms" to unite today
The United Kingdom is a single united solitary kingdom, not multiple kingdoms. Its what the name means! It isn't the United Kingdoms, it is the United Kingdom.
Come now, it isn't as though a principal argument of his rests on the status of the UK as being a unitary state with a supreme central government.
Just make the Prince of WAles the King of Wales. Problem sorted.
If they can change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor ...
The Prince of Wales is already a highly offensive title. It should be dropped.
If they can change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor .. they can change it to Shitbags.
It's interesting thast in Scotland the title of PoW is not used. Charles is the Duke of Rothesay. Not quite sure why, mind. (And so far as I know theyt don't change the aircraft carrier's name when it enters Scottish territorial waters.)
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
That completely contradicts what you just said the post before, when you claimed the kingdoms of Scotland and England remained. You literally said they were the only kingdoms 'left in the UK', which is categorically untrue. You cannot spin 'the unity of the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of Engliand' as the same thing when you just referred to them as separate entities 'left' in the UK.
You really are having some fun when you aren't even pretending to keep consistency from post to post. Make it a bit harder for people at least, you know that is the game.
No it is true, Ireland was the only other Kingdom in the UK which has now left, leaving Scotland the only Kingdom remaining.
Wales is part of the Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland a province, not a Kingdom
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
HYUFD seems to be defining "successor state" in the context of the UN. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason for there being 5 permanent members of the Security Council isn't because of some magical properties held by the number 5. It is because China,USSR,USA,UK and France were all made permanent members under the UN constitution. And so there were 5. It wasn't that the UN was written to have 5 permanent members, and then they had a discussion about which lucky countries should fill the spots.
There's occasionally debate about whether the number of permanent members should be expanded. But that's different to saying that 5 are set in stone, and somehow the demise of the UK would lead to competition to ensure there status as one of the magic 5.
If the UK ceased to exist then it would no longer be a permanent member of the UN by default, especially as is likely objections would be raised by other members to England alone taking its place
If the UK ceases to exist then I guess that's tough luck for anyone who lent the country money.
Sounds a bit like a Doctor Who story. Would we have fallen through a transdimensional portal into another universe?
If an impossible thing happens then a fantastical thing will happen as a consequence is not a very illuminating form of discourse.
I went for a walk to enjoy the haar earlier, saw a fabulous sunset and then a bright meteor while the sky was still bright. 5C, but with considerable wind chill. Did someone say it was spring earlier?
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
Hyufd, I think you will find the kingdom of Ireland was redesignated the kingdom of Northern Ireland in 1927 and is still in being.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
No, it was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
England and Scotland ceased to exist as separate Kingdoms in 1707. They formed a single Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was still the unity of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which the Kingdom of Ireland was added onto in 1801
Seriously, this is ytour argiment against Scottish independence in a nutshell - that the UK might lose its Security Council place if it becomes one Kingdom?
Plus we would also fall from the 5th largest economy as the UK to only the 7th largest economy as England alone
Just make the Prince of WAles the King of Wales. Problem sorted.
If they can change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor ...
When I read a history of Prussia last year there was an interesting diversion on a bit of a trend for a number of rulers at the time upgrading themselves into kings.
Don't get me started on when they were Kings in Prussia, not Kings of Prussia.
Ydoethur will know if it is true, but apparently the Prince of Wales title was a bit of a mess and not necessarily as grand as we tend to think of it from the title.
Comments
Still I care: I was incensed at Claire Fox getting a peerage (https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/08/04/if-youre-in-a-glasshouse/) and am pretty cross - if not a bit surprised - at the PM today criticising Roy Greenslade for his support for the IRA. It seems that this is utterly unacceptable to the current Tory party unless they become supporters of Boris and Brexit, at which point all criticism ceases and they get elevated to the legislature without any of that tiresome bother of elections - much like terrorists using violence rather than persuasion to get their own way.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
But unlike HYUFD you don't think all Conservatives are conservative do you?
Like @Sean_F excellently put it "Conservatives come in all sorts of shapes and forms."
You wouldn't expel me from the party for being a libertarian Conservative instead of a conservative Conservative would you?
You do not seem to be able to wrap your head around the concept of governing with the consent of the governed.
You, @Philip_Thompson and OGH have convinced me to make this part of my betting metrics from now on. The net rating for someone as polarising as Boris doesn't seem as useful because he's got such a low level of DKs.
In fact only 43% want independence now anyway, even less than 2014
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1365978299265150978?s=20
You don't understand how this works, do you?
Corbyn only led amongst student types in 2019, Starmer has now added high earning professionals to that, at least on net favourability terms
Surely the DK's are most likely to be the non voters? Using net figures assumes 100% of those polled will vote, I think?
You are making it up.
Allowing endless referendums is a recipe for perpetual instability, and economic chaos. The right to allow referendums was reserved to Westminster, in the Scotland Act, precisely for this reason. A referendum on secession is so huge it must be a very rare event, approved by all four nations of the UK, through MPs representing their voters, in the Commons. This, of course, includes Scottish MPs. This is not England allowing a referendum, or not, this is the Union, the UK, democratically deciding in its supreme house of parliament.
If Sturgeon wins her majority and calls for a new indyref, let Boris put it to the Commons for a Free Vote, and let the MPs of the entire United Kingdom decide. That is British democracy
In the UK you don't get the impression that our rollout plans are based on whatever random vaccine happens to be available from month to month. We are clearly pretty confident in our supplies, but also seem to be building in back-up planning for occasional disruption. And even seem to be planning for the second generation jabs if needed later in the year.
I wonder if one of the reasons that many EU countries are continuing with the "two jab" policy (leading to much of the supply such as it is being held in reserve) is that they have no confidence that the supplies will be available for the second jab when needed otherwise.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1366457836608356357
Oh and the UK was never "granted" a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. It was a consequence of being one of the main victorious powers of World War II and key founder member.
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
In the USSR the situation was somewhat different because the RSSR declared independence before the USSR was formally abolished. England wouldn’t do that from the UK.
Besides which if Scotland goes independent the UK would still exist, just as it did when Ireland did. Even if Scotland, NI and Wales all went independent, the UK would still exist. Even if its just England. The UK could rename itself to being England but it wouldn't just be a successor state, it would legally be the same state.
The Act of Union integrated Scotland wholesale into the UK, it did not keep the Scotland and England separate. Scottish independence doesn't end the UK, even if the name becomes illogical.
It is highly likely though objections would be made in the UN General Assembly if England alone were to make the claim to be treated as the successor state of the UK if the UK broke up and I suspect Russia and China and maybe even France too would raise objections as well amongst the other P5, none are exactly great friends to us. Only the US of the P5 would likely certainly back England's continued permanent Security Council membership.
1707 -
“ That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.”
1800 -
“ That it be the first Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the Name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; (my emphasis) and that the Royal Stile and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom and its Dependencies, and also the Ensigns, Armorial Flags and Banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint.”
The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 simply added in the “Northern” in front of “Ireland” but the nation is the same.
And the fact is that the UK's position is guaranteed by the UN constitution. England/Wales/NI would obviously be the successor state and would retain its status within the UN.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
Neither Russia nor China have an incentive to raise an issue as they both have their own issues in the past they don't want raking over; China being the successor to the Republic of China, and Russia being the successor to the USSR.
Besides all that would need to be done is to release Scotland from the UK, like was done when Ireland went independent, while keeping the UK as a state that no longer had Scotland in it. Nations can release bits of themselves without ceasing to exist, nations can rename without ceasing to exist. France has lost a huge chunk of its landmass since the UN was founded, including Algeria, it never lost its claim to the UNSC seat as a result. The UK could continue as a state even if it just had England as its land.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
There's occasionally debate about whether the number of permanent members should be expanded. But that's different to saying that 5 are set in stone, and somehow the demise of the UK would lead to competition to ensure there status as one of the magic 5.
The UK doesn't cease to exist just because parts of the UK go independent, just as France never ceased to exist just because parts of France went independent. The UK will be the continuity state, there is no doubt about that.
No successor state would have to be chosen. When was France chosen to be successor over Algeria? It wasn't. The UK would continue to exist, even if it renames itself England, as a continuous still existing state.
The UK would cease to exist so its position would no longer be guaranteed if Scotland broke away
Here we see it again.
The UK would still exist even if it was just England. Scotland would be a new state, the state called the United Kingdom would not have ceased to exist it would continue to exist.
The UK would only cease to exist if England chose not to continue to be the UK, otherwise Scotland would go independent and the UK would continue without Scotland.
It would be easier for you if you just accepted you were wrong and moved on, because you are and you are looking increasingly absurd.
Equally the UN could choose to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council. Then there would be 6, or 7, or 8. But all the "leading candidates" that you cite have issues which make that unlikely. Mostly that they don't aspire to have militaries with global reach that is arguably a pre-requisite of the job.
I doubt it will happen any time soon though. The French are proud.
Even if Scotland, Wales and NI go independent the UK still exists as a state. Just as France still exists after losing lots of its land. Those lands were integrated into a single state and can be released without disbanding the UK.
Now there is a St David's Day YouGov poll with rather different results (to my mind, rather more realistic).
Drakeford will now be getting a bit of a kicking.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/senedd-election-poll-seats-predictor-19906017
The seat prediction is Labour 24, Tories 16, Plaid Cymru 14, Abolish 5, LibDems 1.
Number of seats for a Senedd Majority is 31.
This looks quite plausible to me, I think Drakeford won't be able to match Carwyn & some Labour losses are baked in.
This poll gives Labour down 5 seats, which looks about right. If so, it will be the weakest result Llafur has had in Welsh Assembly/Senedd elections.
(I also think the LibDems will hang on Brecon & Radnorshire, so they won't be extinguished from Wales just yet).
Northern Ireland however did not become a Kingdom in its own right, it is merely a province, the only Kingdoms left in the UK after Ireland's departure are the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
Why do I bother? You don’t change your mind merely because you’ve been proven wrong.
Never become a judge.
So too if NI goes independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself back to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
So too if Scotland, NI and Wales go independent, the UK would still exist, it could just rename itself to the Kingdom of England.
The point is the kingdom would never have "ceased to exist".
So the successor state would have to be called England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or just the Kingdom of England and Wales if Northern Ireland left too
England would not be a successor state, it would be a continuity state.
If they can change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor ...
If Scotland left there could logically not be a Kingdom of Great Britain either as Scotland is a key part of the island of Great Britain.
The Kingdom of England would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom on any definition
You really are having some fun when you aren't even pretending to keep consistency from post to post. Make it a bit harder for people at least, you know that is the game.
If Scotland goes independent it will not be a simple matter of dissolving the 1707 Act of Union like repealing the European Communities Act. Scotland whether Kingdom or Republic would need to be created as it does not exist currently.
The UK would continue to exist, just minus Scotland. It doesn't matter how it was formed, that is our own internal politics.
Because that is the logical implication of your bizarre (and inaccurate, but that is irrelevant) focus on the UK's position being dependent on being a Union of more than one Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is a single united solitary kingdom, not multiple kingdoms. Its what the name means! It isn't the United Kingdoms, it is the United Kingdom.
If they can change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor .. they can change it to Shitbags.
The peoples of the UK are entitled to assume that their lives will not be continuously disrupted and their politics distracted by the wishes of a small part of the whole; that must be right. But if that cohesive small part, in this case the country of Scotland, votes by a majority for parties that want a referendum then I really don't see how it can be refused. To do so is both undemocratic and counter-productive because it will only stir up the people of that small part even more and the denial of democratic rights leads to undemocratic means being used as we saw all too painfully in Northern Ireland.
Of course if they persist in these requests then there may come a point when rUK thinks that they might have a referendum about whether they want to stay in union with these annoying Scots and that too would be their choice. That is one of the risks that Scotland is taking.
If there is a stronger unionist than me on this board I have yet to identify them. I strongly believe that another independence referendum is the exact opposite of what Scotland needs right now, trying to rebuild an economy after the disaster of Covid. I will vote accordingly. But I respect the right of the people of Scotland to choose and I would urge unionists in other parts of the UK to do the same in the fervent hope that that way we remain one of the most successful unions in history.
Sorry Scotland, you can't be independent because it would reduce our status! (of course, Scotland being such a drag on the UK Treasury, it could lead to a significant appreciation in the value of the £ which might push us back up the list
Wales is part of the Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland a province, not a Kingdom
Sounds a bit like a Doctor Who story. Would we have fallen through a transdimensional portal into another universe?
If an impossible thing happens then a fantastical thing will happen as a consequence is not a very illuminating form of discourse.
I went for a walk to enjoy the haar earlier, saw a fabulous sunset and then a bright meteor while the sky was still bright. 5C, but with considerable wind chill. Did someone say it was spring earlier?
Don't get me started on when they were Kings in Prussia, not Kings of Prussia.
Ydoethur will know if it is true, but apparently the Prince of Wales title was a bit of a mess and not necessarily as grand as we tend to think of it from the title.