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.
Arguably yes as it was granted to us as the UK though that would be less compelling an argument than the break up of the original country that got the seat in the first 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 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?
Well precisely!
Everyone who has ever lent the UK money has a great interest in recognising England as the continuity of 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
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added 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
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.
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
Now you're contradicting yourself again! One post they are separate kingdoms within the UK, then they are unified, now they are seperate again.
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
But anyway you're wrong since the UK doesn't refer to Scotland. If Scotland went independent we might be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland (since historically Wales is part of England). Or we could be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Not that it matters a jot.
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.
Arguably yes as it was granted to us as the UK though that would be less compelling an argument than the break up of the original country that got the seat in the first 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 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.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
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.
Well said. Either we believe in democracy or we don't. At some point you cannot keep refusing people a vote even if it is a bad idea.
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
No we couldn't as there would be no Kingdom left to unite ourselves with
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
If you are going down the transactional route, aka project Fear, surely a more compelling argument is that Scotland would go from being part of the world’s fifth largest economy to being the world’s sixty-sixth largest economy, with one quarter of its wealth depending on trade with the aforementioned fifth (now seventh) largest economy?
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
Ireland is a Kingdom? Who knew!
Henry VIII made himself King of Ireland in 1542
I klnow you love the Henrician Settlement, and despise anything else, but really, Niall of the Nine Hostages and his predecessors and successors all wave at you.
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.
Arguably yes though that would be less compelling an argument than the break up of the original country that got the seat in the first place
1) In the real world, very few of us voters care about the UN seat or our influence I’m the world.
2) In any case, as noted above, we wouldn’t lose our permanent membership of the security council, simply because it’s not in France or Russia’s interest to vary it to reflect relative size and power in 2021.
3) All that being said, the permanent membership of the security council needs to expand to include India and Japan soon, else the whole institution will become irrelevant and face the fate of the League of Nations.
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
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
Ireland is a Kingdom? Who knew!
Henry VIII made himself King of Ireland in 1542
I klnow you love the Henrician Settlement, and despise anything else, but really, Niall of the Nine Hostages and his predecessors and successors all wave at you.
Which only emphasises the point even more, there have been lots of Kings of Ireland
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.
Well said. Either we believe in democracy or we don't. At some point you cannot keep refusing people a vote even if it is a bad idea.
Once a generation has elapsed since 2014's first referendum yes
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
No we couldn't as there would be no Kingdom left to unite ourselves with
There is no Kingdom left to unite already. There's only one Kingdom.
The "Kingdom of England" does not exist, it ceased to exist over 300 years ago!
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
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
Ireland is a Kingdom? Who knew!
Henry VIII made himself King of Ireland in 1542
I wasn't querying that they were a Kingdom before the Act of Union.
But it is you that claims that the UK's international status is defined by its internal constitutional arrangements. Post 1801 there was no "Irish Kingdom" to leave. There was the Irish state.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one 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?
Plus we would also fall from the 5th largest economy as the UK to only the 7th largest economy as England alone
If you are going down the transactional route, aka project Fear, surely a more compelling argument is that Scotland would go from being part of the world’s fifth largest economy to being the world’s sixty-sixth largest economy, with one quarter of its wealth depending on trade with the aforementioned fifth (now seventh) largest economy?
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
No we couldn't as there would be no Kingdom left to unite ourselves with
Ok, now you're just confusing me. A name doesn't have to relate to anything. We could call France outer England, and if we could enforce our will make people call it that.
Or do you believe the North Koreans really are a Democratic People's Republic because that is what their name says?
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
Ireland is a Kingdom? Who knew!
Henry VIII made himself King of Ireland in 1542
I klnow you love the Henrician Settlement, and despise anything else, but really, Niall of the Nine Hostages and his predecessors and successors all wave at you.
Which only emphasises the point even more, there have been lots of Kings of Ireland
Can you find documentary evidence that Henry Tudor was ever formally made king on the Hill of Tara? No? then the Kingdom of Irelandf was never assimilated into 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
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.
Arguably yes though that would be less compelling an argument than the break up of the original country that got the seat in the first place
1) In the real world, very few of us voters care about the UN seat or our influence I’m the world.
2) In any case, as noted above, we wouldn’t lose our permanent membership of the security council, simply because it’s not in France or Russia’s interest to vary it to reflect relative size and power in 2021.
3) All that being said, the permanent membership of the security council needs to expand to include India and Japan soon, else the whole institution will become irrelevant and face the fate of the League of Nations.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
No, for many reasons. But to keep it simple: we signed a Treaty with a specific method of secession. Article 50. That WAS the law, and we followed it, as did they
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Now now, don't confuse them. They're already saying that Referenda are Bad.
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
Ireland is a Kingdom? Who knew!
Henry VIII made himself King of Ireland in 1542
I klnow you love the Henrician Settlement, and despise anything else, but really, Niall of the Nine Hostages and his predecessors and successors all wave at you.
Which only emphasises the point even more, there have been lots of Kings of Ireland
Can you find documentary evidence that Henry Tudor was ever formally made king on the Hill of Tara? No? then the Kingdom of Irelandf was never assimilated into the UK.
It was declared a Kingdom by Henry and joined the United Kingdom on that basis, that is the key.
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
No we couldn't as there would be no Kingdom left to unite ourselves with
If North Korea can call itself a Democratic Republic, we can certainly carry on calling ourselves a 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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK government demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
I think the answer to the point is that a majority SNP Gvt has the moral right to keep having referendums whenever it wishes to. However, by the fourth or fifth referendum I think the voters would get a bit bored, and the SNP would face the electoral consequences. That’s the corrective.
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
Ireland is a Kingdom? Who knew!
Henry VIII made himself King of Ireland in 1542
I klnow you love the Henrician Settlement, and despise anything else, but really, Niall of the Nine Hostages and his predecessors and successors all wave at you.
Which only emphasises the point even more, there have been lots of Kings of Ireland
Can you find documentary evidence that Henry Tudor was ever formally made king on the Hill of Tara? No? then the Kingdom of Ireland was never assimilated into the UK.
Oh, I don't think the Irish had much to do with the idea in fairness.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
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?
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK government demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
We're now down the bloody warren, never mind the rabbit hole. I'm off to reread the Aubrey and Maturin cycle. I do hope th is line of argument has finished by the time I come back.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK government demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
We're now down the bloody warren, never mind the rabbit hole. I'm off to reread the Aubrey and Maturin cycle. I do hope th is line of argument has finished by the time I come back.
We'll start talking about Catalonia again, since you'll be able add some historical perspective.
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?
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.
I haven’t the energy to go into it in detail, but essentially when Wales was conquered between 1276 and 1284, the former principalities of Gwynedd, Powys and Deheubarth were incorporated into new administrative arrangements. However, initially at least the royal families of Deheubarth and Powys were left with considerable power over their ancestral lands (Powys eventually grew into the marcher lordship of Pool, and in fact their descendants still live there). In 1287 Maredudd ap Rhys, the last native prince of Deheubarth, was beheaded after a rebellion, and his lordship reorganised into the shire of Carmarthen, which was united with Cardiganshire to the north to form the Principality of West Wales. To the north, the three shires of Merioneth, Carnarvon and Anglesey were organised into the Principality of North Wales by the Statute of Rhuddlan (1284). These were royal lands, but ruled separately from England. As a result, it was thought desirable to a have figurehead ruler who wasn’t the King and so Edward created his son - who would be no threat to him - Prince of Wales. It was merely a way of raising these lands in de jure rank above the regular run of marcher lordships, not a way of building someone up as a potential King.
It should be noted that Chester was also a principality at times, notably under Richard II. Again, that was about snobbery. It didn’t show they were somehow notably different or special from Pool, Brecon, Glamorgan or Wigmore, but it must have felt that 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.
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.
Arguably yes as it was granted to us as the UK though that would be less compelling an argument than the break up of the original country that got the seat in the first place
Haha! This is what 'painting yourself into a corner' looks like.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
No we couldn't as there would be no Kingdom left to unite ourselves with
If North Korea can call itself a Democratic Republic, we can certainly carry on calling ourselves a United Kingdom.
North Korea is not a permanent member of the Security Council, even if it split into multiple parts each of them would still keep membership of the UN General Assembly as England and Scotland would have if the UK broke apart
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
Mercia?
If we were just left with the Midlands there would be no England anymore either
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK government demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
We're now down the bloody warren, never mind the rabbit hole. I'm off to reread the Aubrey and Maturin cycle. I do hope th is line of argument has finished by the time I come back.
That would be a Surprise, even if it were to take a Hundred Days.
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
No we couldn't as there would be no Kingdom left to unite ourselves with
There is no Kingdom left to unite already. There's only one Kingdom.
The "Kingdom of England" does not exist, it ceased to exist over 300 years ago!
In a personal or dynastic sense it ceased with the Union of the crowns in 1603.
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.
I haven’t the energy to go into it in detail, but essentially when Wales was conquered between 1276 and 1284, the former principalities of Gwynedd, Powys and Deheubarth were incorporated into new administrative arrangements. However, initially at least the royal families of Deheubarth and Powys were left with considerable power over their ancestral lands (Powys eventually grew into the marcher lordship of Pool, and in fact their descendants still live there). In 1287 Maredudd ap Rhys, the last native prince of Deheubarth, was beheaded after a rebellion, and his lordship reorganised into the shire of Carmarthen, which was united with Cardiganshire to the north to form the Principality of West Wales. To the north, the three whites of Merioneth, Carnarvon and Anglesey were organised into the Principality of North Wales by the Statute of Rhuddlan (1284). These were royal lands, but ruled separately from England. As a result, it was thought desirable to a have figurehead ruler who wasn’t the King and so Edward created his son - who would be no threat to him - Prince of Wales. It was merely a way of raising these lands in de jure rank above the regular run of marcher lordships, not a way of building someone up as a potential King.
It should be noted that Chester was also a principality at times, notably under Richard II. Again, that was about snobbery. It didn’t show they were somehow notably different or special from Pool, Brecon, Glamorgan or Wigmore, but it must have felt that way.
Have a good evening.
Fascinatingly complex, though I was thinking about those who might have claimed the title prior to the conquest, whether that was a bit optimistic in terms of their actual power or 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.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
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.
Then we must politely disagree. I believe my position is correct, and just. You clearly feel the same about yours. And I can see your logic.
Moving on, the polls suggest that Scots would not react with an angry switch to YES if denied a vote. Only 18% want UDI in that event. A larger number want Sturgeon to pursue Boris through the courts (as is her right). The plurality think the SNP should just accept it.
This, of course, will be part of Boris' plan. To divide the Nats between the mad UDI-ers and the sane go-to-courters. I suspect it might work.
There is, I believe, a slender chance that Sturgeon (if she is is still around) could win in the courts. But it is slender
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.
No it would not, if Scotland left there would be no Kingdoms left in the remaining UK other than England, it would therefore no longer be a United Kingdom, nor a Kingdom of Great Britain either for which Scotland is a key component.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
A rose is a rose by any other name. Our name is up to us, it has nothing to do with the rest of the world - and again there are no other kingdoms already. There's only been one kingdom all along.
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
No we couldn't as there would be no Kingdom left to unite ourselves with
There is no Kingdom left to unite already. There's only one Kingdom.
The "Kingdom of England" does not exist, it ceased to exist over 300 years ago!
In a personal or dynastic sense it ceased with the Union of the crowns in 1603.
Elizabeth I didn't have kids.
If the crown’s vacant and nobody else wants it, I’ll have a bash. First things first, let’s invade France like the old days.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
As Leon correctly pointed out to you on your definition of democracy if the SNP get a majority they can call a referendum every year until they get the result they want
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK government demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
We're now down the bloody warren, never mind the rabbit hole. I'm off to reread the Aubrey and Maturin cycle. I do hope th is line of argument has finished by the time I come back.
I wouldn't hold out much hope - the Aubrey-Maturin series is only 20 novels.
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK government demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
We're now down the bloody warren, never mind the rabbit hole. I'm off to reread the Aubrey and Maturin cycle. I do hope th is line of argument has finished by the time I come back.
That would be a Surprise, even if it were to take a Hundred Days.
There's a nutmeg of consolation in having this pleasure to look forward to, saved up through lockdown ... I'm also reading, in parallel, Andrew Lambert's Seapower States. I had no idea that Venice was seen as a maritime model for the UK in Victorian times, and I'm pretty familiar with Ruskinian Venetian Gothic buildings. Anyway, night 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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
I think the definition it is closest to is a mistake, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
It doesn't matter how it came to be, that belongs to history.
We could call ourselves the United Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons, the United Kingdom of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc - or just call ourselves England. It makes no difference, the state would be a continuity state with all rights and responsibilities.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
As Leon correctly pointed out to you on your definition of democracy if the SNP get a majority they can call a referendum every year until they get the result they want
And the Greens. It's all part of democracy.
But I thought you said that nice Mr Johson would block it?
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
As Leon correctly pointed out to you on your definition of democracy if the SNP get a majority they can call a referendum every year until they get the result they want
The point of democracy is that elected Gvts have the right to do silly things, but the voters will take a view when the time comes, and would take a dim view of what you suggest. In any case, an independence referendum a year would cost less than some other silly SNP policies.
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.
I haven’t the energy to go into it in detail, but essentially when Wales was conquered between 1276 and 1284, the former principalities of Gwynedd, Powys and Deheubarth were incorporated into new administrative arrangements. However, initially at least the royal families of Deheubarth and Powys were left with considerable power over their ancestral lands (Powys eventually grew into the marcher lordship of Pool, and in fact their descendants still live there). In 1287 Maredudd ap Rhys, the last native prince of Deheubarth, was beheaded after a rebellion, and his lordship reorganised into the shire of Carmarthen, which was united with Cardiganshire to the north to form the Principality of West Wales. To the north, the three whites of Merioneth, Carnarvon and Anglesey were organised into the Principality of North Wales by the Statute of Rhuddlan (1284). These were royal lands, but ruled separately from England. As a result, it was thought desirable to a have figurehead ruler who wasn’t the King and so Edward created his son - who would be no threat to him - Prince of Wales. It was merely a way of raising these lands in de jure rank above the regular run of marcher lordships, not a way of building someone up as a potential King.
It should be noted that Chester was also a principality at times, notably under Richard II. Again, that was about snobbery. It didn’t show they were somehow notably different or special from Pool, Brecon, Glamorgan or Wigmore, but it must have felt that way.
Have a good evening.
Fascinatingly complex, though I was thinking about those who might have claimed the title prior to the conquest, whether that was a bit optimistic in terms of their actual power or not.
Then very briefly:
Only one person claimed the title Prince of Wales before 1277, and that was Llewelyn ap Gruffudd, his uncle and grandfather using the title Prince of Aberffraw instead. Llewelyn claimed the title by virtue of the homage paid to him by several Welsh lords, including the barons of Powys, Deheubarth and Maelor. But he could only raise taxes within Gwynedd itself, ironically the poorest part of Wales, which meant Gwynedd paid for the whole burden of military defence against English incursion. And couldn’t cope.
There was a King of Wales, but he only reigned for four years until he was killed in 1063 by Harold Godwineson’s youngest brother.
If, in some stunning Evil Dead style twist, my right arm declared UDI, cut itself off, and ran off using my fingers as legs to cause terror in the Shires, my remaining three limbs and torso would still be Doug.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
As Leon correctly pointed out to you on your definition of democracy if the SNP get a majority they can call a referendum every year until they get the result they want
Only if they kept winning elections and if they do keep winning elections that's the voters choice.
Otherwise if the voters get tired of it they lose the election and the new government doesn't call a referendum because they won the election promising to stop holding them.
Its called democracy. A proud English/British history of it - maybe you should familiarise yourself with the concept?
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
Which I now want to play again.
Sounds like a good pick. Oda Nobunaga's been in so many videogames I feel like I know him better than my own family.
I think the second Medieval Total War remains the best. It was the character traits that did it.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK government demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
We're now down the bloody warren, never mind the rabbit hole. I'm off to reread the Aubrey and Maturin cycle. I do hope th is line of argument has finished by the time I come back.
I wouldn't hold out much hope - the Aubrey-Maturin series is only 20 novels.
Oh, I know. Then the Sharpe novels, and the Hornblower ones, and (seeing as we're talking about Mercia and Wessex) the Lost Kingdom ones. And Alfred Duggan for variety.
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
Which I now want to play again.
I have an old PC that I bought for £10 ages ago so that I would have a computer I could still play Shogun (and Medieval) on, because for some strange reason they would crash on newer PCs.
Annoyingly the hard drive isn't big enough to have both games installed at once, and I want to storm Copenhagen castle before the Golden Horde turn up...
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.
Then we must politely disagree. I believe my position is correct, and just. You clearly feel the same about yours. And I can see your logic.
Moving on, the polls suggest that Scots would not react with an angry switch to YES if denied a vote. Only 18% want UDI in that event. A larger number want Sturgeon to pursue Boris through the courts (as is her right). The plurality think the SNP should just accept it.
This, of course, will be part of Boris' plan. To divide the Nats between the mad UDI-ers and the sane go-to-courters. I suspect it might work.
There is, I believe, a slender chance that Sturgeon (if she is is still around) could win in the courts. But it is slender
If your position is just then win an election.
That's how we sort out our differences in this country.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
It doesn't matter how it came to be, that belongs to history.
We could call ourselves the United Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons, the United Kingdom of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc - or just call ourselves England. It makes no difference, the state would be a continuity state with all rights and responsibilities.
No we would have to press our claim to retain the permanent seat if the UK no longer existed, which it would not as the state granted the seat in 1945 was the UK of England, Scotland and NI which would no longer exist, with other nations likely raising objections
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
Which I now want to play again.
Great game!
The series peaked with Medieval II.
Well that and Paradox completely surpassing it.
Too complicated! I don't play games to think.
I did like in one of the Rome: Total Wars if you got too popular the Senate would order the faction leader to commit suicide, which you could do.
But there's nothing quite like assassinating the pope so your cardinal can take over.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
As Leon correctly pointed out to you on your definition of democracy if the SNP get a majority they can call a referendum every year until they get the result they want
Only if they kept winning elections and if they do keep winning elections that's the voters choice.
Otherwise if the voters get tired of it they lose the election and the new government doesn't call a referendum because they won the election promising to stop holding them.
Its called democracy. A proud English/British history of it - maybe you should familiarise yourself with the concept?
We have parliamentary democracy, not direct democracy, generally with national elections only held every 4 or 5 years
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
As Leon correctly pointed out to you on your definition of democracy if the SNP get a majority they can call a referendum every year until they get the result they want
And the Greens. It's all part of democracy.
But I thought you said that nice Mr Johson would block it?
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?
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
The Kingdom of Northern Ireland??
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom
Nor is England. 🤦♂️
Nor is Scotland. 🤦♂️
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
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.
Then we must politely disagree. I believe my position is correct, and just. You clearly feel the same about yours. And I can see your logic.
Moving on, the polls suggest that Scots would not react with an angry switch to YES if denied a vote. Only 18% want UDI in that event. A larger number want Sturgeon to pursue Boris through the courts (as is her right). The plurality think the SNP should just accept it.
This, of course, will be part of Boris' plan. To divide the Nats between the mad UDI-ers and the sane go-to-courters. I suspect it might work.
There is, I believe, a slender chance that Sturgeon (if she is is still around) could win in the courts. But it is slender
I think that the response of Scotland to the refusal of a vote when they had voted for it is unpredictable and cannot be gleaned from polls dealing with a hypothetical now. I would certainly as a Unionist feel that I had been left on a distinctly sticky wicket.
FWIW I think that given the choice Scotland would again vote No to independence. The arguments are much weaker than they were in 2014 as is the Scottish economy. If we were able to resist Salmond who lined up all his cards with great skill, an unpopular Tory government focused on austerity; very little Tory representation in Scotland; still a decent flow of oil money to facilitate things; the whole of the UK within the EU SM; a Labour party in Scotland already in disarray deeply ambivalent about apparently supporting a Tory government and a novelty to the argument which has now been lost, then I think the prospects of resisting the incoherent mess that the SNP are now are better than fair.
Now anyone who tries to argue that we would have an amicable divorce will surely be laughed at; there will be much more pressure to specify what exactly we are voting for; the North Sea is now a clean up liability, not an asset; the funding deficit in Scotland is much greater and we have seen again what the UK can do as a cohesive force with furlough, financial support, the vaccines and the roll out.
And if Sturgeon gets brought down it will be even more so. She doesn't have the skill of her mentor but she is very skilled none the less. I do not see anyone else in the SNP to fear. Some of them border on laughable.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
The Kingdom of Northern Ireland??
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom
Well you were the one who said the UK "only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland"
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
Which I now want to play again.
Great game!
The series peaked with Medieval II.
Well that and Paradox completely surpassing it.
I couldn't actually play Shogun Total War II - it was too hard!
I could win all the battles - even on the highest difficulty/realism - but then if you did too well it triggered a realm divide and then all the other clans declared war on you at once :-/
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
It doesn't matter how it came to be, that belongs to history.
We could call ourselves the United Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons, the United Kingdom of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc - or just call ourselves England. It makes no difference, the state would be a continuity state with all rights and responsibilities.
No we would have to press our claim to retain the permanent seat if the UK no longer existed, which it would not as the state granted the seat in 1945 was the UK of England, Scotland and NI which would no longer exist, with other nations likely raising objections
No we would not since the UK would still exist.
France was the France of France, Algeria etc and that no longer exists, but modern France is the continuity state. The UK was England etc but if the rest leave then we still exist and we still pay the bills and we still get the seat. Its not difficult. The UK national debt stands at nearly £2.5 trillion and the world wants that paying you fool. We will be the continuity state paying those bills so we would get the seat. There's no such thing as claims and no casus belli here.
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
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
Following that argument, would you have supported the European Parliament voting to decide whther to allow Brexit?
Had the UK demanded a referendum on membership in 1982 just 7 years after voting to stay in the EEC in 1975 the EEC would have had a case to block it yes
No they would not.
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
As Leon correctly pointed out to you on your definition of democracy if the SNP get a majority they can call a referendum every year until they get the result they want
And the Greens. It's all part of democracy.
But I thought you said that nice Mr Johson would block it?
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Poor old Meath gets left out.
and Donegal and Louth.
edit: apologies, I meant Cavan and Monaghan as well as Donegal, not Meath.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
It doesn't matter how it came to be, that belongs to history.
We could call ourselves the United Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons, the United Kingdom of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc - or just call ourselves England. It makes no difference, the state would be a continuity state with all rights and responsibilities.
No we would have to press our claim to retain the permanent seat if the UK no longer existed, which it would not as the state granted the seat in 1945 was the UK of England, Scotland and NI which would no longer exist, with other nations likely raising objections
No we would not since the UK would still exist.
France was the France of France, Algeria etc and that no longer exists, but modern France is the continuity state. The UK was England etc but if the rest leave then we still exist and we still pay the bills and we still get the seat. Its not difficult. The UK national debt stands at nearly £2.5 trillion and the world wants that paying you fool. We will be the continuity state paying those bills so we would get the seat. There's no such thing as claims and no casus belli here.
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
Which I now want to play again.
I have an old PC that I bought for £10 ages ago so that I would have a computer I could still play Shogun (and Medieval) on, because for some strange reason they would crash on newer PCs.
Annoyingly the hard drive isn't big enough to have both games installed at once, and I want to storm Copenhagen castle before the Golden Horde turn up...
Just get Oracle virtualbox on a modern machine and then load an old copy of Windows XP onto it.
That's what I do with my old games and they can still utilise your rig's base hardware and graphics card.
If, in some stunning Evil Dead style twist, my right arm declared UDI, cut itself off, and ran off using my fingers as legs to cause terror in the Shires, my remaining three limbs and torso would still be Doug.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
It doesn't matter how it came to be, that belongs to history.
We could call ourselves the United Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons, the United Kingdom of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc - or just call ourselves England. It makes no difference, the state would be a continuity state with all rights and responsibilities.
No we would have to press our claim to retain the permanent seat if the UK no longer existed, which it would not as the state granted the seat in 1945 was the UK of England, Scotland and NI which would no longer exist, with other nations likely raising objections
No we would not since the UK would still exist.
France was the France of France, Algeria etc and that no longer exists, but modern France is the continuity state. The UK was England etc but if the rest leave then we still exist and we still pay the bills and we still get the seat. Its not difficult. The UK national debt stands at nearly £2.5 trillion and the world wants that paying you fool. We will be the continuity state paying those bills so we would get the seat. There's no such thing as claims and no casus belli here.
Don't we owe most of it to ourselves?
Much of it, true, but those who own the rest of it will want their bills repaid.
The idea that other countries would object to the English being the continuity state is farcical since all major economies hold some of our gilts. They will want to be repaid, which means recognising us as the continuity state.
1) the Everton-Southampton game I've just endured. 2) the interminable debate on here with (once in a generation) Hyufd about what constitutes a kingdom blah blah blah.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
For those who like their military history I'm enjoying the new Netflix series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan.
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
Which I now want to play again.
I have an old PC that I bought for £10 ages ago so that I would have a computer I could still play Shogun (and Medieval) on, because for some strange reason they would crash on newer PCs.
Annoyingly the hard drive isn't big enough to have both games installed at once, and I want to storm Copenhagen castle before the Golden Horde turn up...
Just get Oracle virtualbox on a modern machine and then load an old copy of Windows XP onto it.
That's what I do with my old games and they can still utilise your rig's base hardware and graphics card.
oh - that might be the best thing I have heard all day! cheers!!!!!!
1) the Everton-Southampton game I've just endured. 2) the interminable debate on here with (once in a generation) Hyufd about what constitutes a kingdom blah blah blah.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
The Kingdom of Northern Ireland??
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom
Nor is England. 🤦♂️
Nor is Scotland. 🤦♂️
They are, just they have united together
No they're not. England ceased to exist as a Kingdom.
England no more exists as a Kingdom than Mercia or Wessex.
I see that the Scottish Greens are standing in only two of the nine constituencies in the Lothian Region.
Situation would be a lot harder for the SNP if the Greens saw this as an opportunity to win support as a party of independence not embroiled in scandal.
Don't be a silly billy , they have no chance of winning constituency seats whatsoever.
There are only two constituencies the Greens could possibly win. Glasgow Kelvin, where Patrick Harvie was second in a university seat where Sandra White is retiring, and Edinburgh Central, if SNP voters vote for Alison Johnstone in order to try to keep Angus Robertson out.
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
Northern Ireland is not a province. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and (the best) Munster. None are coterminous with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is not a country or a Kingdom, the closest it is to a definition is a province or region
Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Scotland is not a Kingdom. Wales is not a Kingdom. England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Which only came to being by uniting the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, if only England was left there would thus be no United Kingdom left.
It doesn't matter how it came to be, that belongs to history.
We could call ourselves the United Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons, the United Kingdom of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc - or just call ourselves England. It makes no difference, the state would be a continuity state with all rights and responsibilities.
No we would have to press our claim to retain the permanent seat if the UK no longer existed, which it would not as the state granted the seat in 1945 was the UK of England, Scotland and NI which would no longer exist, with other nations likely raising objections
No we would not since the UK would still exist.
France was the France of France, Algeria etc and that no longer exists, but modern France is the continuity state. The UK was England etc but if the rest leave then we still exist and we still pay the bills and we still get the seat. Its not difficult. The UK national debt stands at nearly £2.5 trillion and the world wants that paying you fool. We will be the continuity state paying those bills so we would get the seat. There's no such thing as claims and no casus belli here.
France is one whole nation, not a Union of Kingdoms, there is no part of the word 'France' which requires the inclusion of Algeria, just as the UK did not require the inclusion of India to be the UK when it was part of the British Empire in 1945 still. The UK would not exist however if Scotland left as there would no longer be any Kingdoms left within it to unite.
We would keep our General Assembly seat regardless, it is only our Security Council seat which would potentially be under threat
Comments
Everyone who has ever lent the UK money has a great interest in recognising England as the continuity of the UK.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is mad.
It would be merely the Kingdom of England (with Wales and Northern Ireland added on)
This is a work of art!
We could choose to rename ourselves the United Kingdom of England for all it matters.
But anyway you're wrong since the UK doesn't refer to Scotland. If Scotland went independent we might be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland (since historically Wales is part of England). Or we could be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Not that it matters a jot.
2) In any case, as noted above, we wouldn’t lose our permanent membership of the security council, simply because it’s not in France or Russia’s interest to vary it to reflect relative size and power in 2021.
3) All that being said, the permanent membership of the security council needs to expand to include India and Japan soon, else the whole institution will become irrelevant and face the fate of the League of Nations.
The "Kingdom of England" does not exist, it ceased to exist over 300 years ago!
But it is you that claims that the UK's international status is defined by its internal constitutional arrangements. Post 1801 there was no "Irish Kingdom" to leave. There was the Irish state.
Scotland is not a Kingdom.
Wales is not a Kingdom.
England is not a Kingdom.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one United Kingdom.
Or do you believe the North Koreans really are a Democratic People's Republic because that is what their name says?
Had Labour won the 1983 election that would have been that.
It is called democracy. Get familiar with it, its part of the noble history of this country you despise.
It should be noted that Chester was also a principality at times, notably under Richard II. Again, that was about snobbery. It didn’t show they were somehow notably different or special from Pool, Brecon, Glamorgan or Wigmore, but it must have felt that way.
Have a good evening.
Elizabeth I didn't have kids.
Moving on, the polls suggest that Scots would not react with an angry switch to YES if denied a vote. Only 18% want UDI in that event. A larger number want Sturgeon to pursue Boris through the courts (as is her right). The plurality think the SNP should just accept it.
This, of course, will be part of Boris' plan. To divide the Nats between the mad UDI-ers and the sane go-to-courters. I suspect it might work.
There is, I believe, a slender chance that Sturgeon (if she is is still around) could win in the courts. But it is slender
It's basically a six-part docu-drama of the Sengoku period, or the TV history version of the groundbreaking 2001 PC game Shogun Total War for the real nerds.
Which I now want to play again.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1366501381193027605?s=19
We could call ourselves the United Kingdom of the Anglo Saxons, the United Kingdom of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc - or just call ourselves England. It makes no difference, the state would be a continuity state with all rights and responsibilities.
But I thought you said that nice Mr Johson would block it?
Only one person claimed the title Prince of Wales before 1277, and that was Llewelyn ap Gruffudd, his uncle and grandfather using the title Prince of Aberffraw instead. Llewelyn claimed the title by virtue of the homage paid to him by several Welsh lords, including the barons of Powys, Deheubarth and Maelor. But he could only raise taxes within Gwynedd itself, ironically the poorest part of Wales, which meant Gwynedd paid for the whole burden of military defence against English incursion. And couldn’t cope.
There was a King of Wales, but he only reigned for four years until he was killed in 1063 by Harold Godwineson’s youngest brother.
Good evening to you all.
Otherwise if the voters get tired of it they lose the election and the new government doesn't call a referendum because they won the election promising to stop holding them.
Its called democracy. A proud English/British history of it - maybe you should familiarise yourself with the concept?
I think the second Medieval Total War remains the best. It was the character traits that did it.
Annoyingly the hard drive isn't big enough to have both games installed at once, and I want to storm Copenhagen castle before the Golden Horde turn up...
That's how we sort out our differences in this country.
Nor is Scotland. 🤦♂️
The series peaked with Medieval II.
Well that and Paradox completely surpassing it.
I did like in one of the Rome: Total Wars if you got too popular the Senate would order the faction leader to commit suicide, which you could do.
But there's nothing quite like assassinating the pope so your cardinal can take over.
United States of America
One Kingdom. Fifty States.
FWIW I think that given the choice Scotland would again vote No to independence. The arguments are much weaker than they were in 2014 as is the Scottish economy. If we were able to resist Salmond who lined up all his cards with great skill, an unpopular Tory government focused on austerity; very little Tory representation in Scotland; still a decent flow of oil money to facilitate things; the whole of the UK within the EU SM; a Labour party in Scotland already in disarray deeply ambivalent about apparently supporting a Tory government and a novelty to the argument which has now been lost, then I think the prospects of resisting the incoherent mess that the SNP are now are better than fair.
Now anyone who tries to argue that we would have an amicable divorce will surely be laughed at; there will be much more pressure to specify what exactly we are voting for; the North Sea is now a clean up liability, not an asset; the funding deficit in Scotland is much greater and we have seen again what the UK can do as a cohesive force with furlough, financial support, the vaccines and the roll out.
And if Sturgeon gets brought down it will be even more so. She doesn't have the skill of her mentor but she is very skilled none the less. I do not see anyone else in the SNP to fear. Some of them border on laughable.
I could win all the battles - even on the highest difficulty/realism - but then if you did too well it triggered a realm divide and then all the other clans declared war on you at once :-/
France was the France of France, Algeria etc and that no longer exists, but modern France is the continuity state. The UK was England etc but if the rest leave then we still exist and we still pay the bills and we still get the seat. Its not difficult. The UK national debt stands at nearly £2.5 trillion and the world wants that paying you fool. We will be the continuity state paying those bills so we would get the seat. There's no such thing as claims and no casus belli here.
edit: apologies, I meant Cavan and Monaghan as well as Donegal, not Meath.
That's what I do with my old games and they can still utilise your rig's base hardware and graphics card.
Shall we talk about GPT3?
You finally have an answer for your wife.
The idea that other countries would object to the English being the continuity state is farcical since all major economies hold some of our gilts. They will want to be repaid, which means recognising us as the continuity state.
1) the Everton-Southampton game I've just endured.
2) the interminable debate on here with (once in a generation) Hyufd about what constitutes a kingdom blah blah blah.
Think I'll call it a draw.
England no more exists as a Kingdom than Mercia or Wessex.
We would keep our General Assembly seat regardless, it is only our Security Council seat which would potentially be under threat