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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
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.
No, it is a Kingdom united with Scotland as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, with the province of Northern Ireland added on too now the Kingdom of Ireland has 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.
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
For fucks sake the UK is not a Union of Kingdoms either.
The predecessor kingdoms whether it be England, Scotland, Mercia, Northumberland, Wessex or any other no longer exist.
By 2043 Scotland is projected to be down to 7.7% of the UK population.
We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of seats Scotland has in the HoC, we are about to see the same for Wales. The views of the other nations increasingly count for less and less. It is an issue.
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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
If Scotland left that would be disuniting the UK, there would no longer be that union of the 2 kingdoms anymore and the UK of GB and NI that got the seat in 1945 would no longer exist
So it had to be gouged out of him, and he only did it at the last minute, to save his skin. Do the SNP realise how bad this looks?!
The whole thing is unbelievable and if the SNP hold onto their popularity they will be very lucky
The SNP are the party of independence. Lots and lots and lots of people want independence. So they'll keep voting for the SNP regardless of the circumstances.
This is uncontroversial. So long as the core policy remains in place they can get away with anything, and still scoop up at least 45% of the constituency vote.
Time will tell but as has been pointed out a considerable number of SNP supporters were formerly labour and support the union, they just thought the SNP would govern Scotland better
It is now uncertain just how many of these supporters will stay will the SNP and as I have said before, some of my Scots family members are SNP supporters but also pro the Union
Yes, after many years of appearing sensible and competent compared to Westminster, suddenly the SNP look hugely inept, riven with internal wars, and incapable of being honest. This may make voters scrutinise the rest of their record, and think Hmmm, because their record is not very good
That's the big damage from Salmondgate. It removes the SNP's and Sturgeon's supposed USP: calm and measured governance.
Tories have an interesting line to tread on all this. They need to damage the SNP to the extent that it really hurts independence. But not to the extent that it trashes the SNP so that Labour can start getting material numbers of Westminster seats. A seriously wounded Sturgeon still in place is probably Boris's best outcome.
Any true Tory would put Britain before party-politics and prefer to see Scotland returning Labour MPs than SNP MPs.
Our electoral system encourages broad coalitions within the same party, rather than governing coalitions between parties. Whether you think FPTP is any good or not, that is one of its effects.
There is no reason to suppose that all Conservatives, or Conservative voters, are necessarily devout Unionists.
After all, there's rather a lot to like for the English right if the Union collapses. The departure of Scotland kicks away Labour's Zimmer frame. Much is made of how the Scottish Tories saved Theresa May's bacon in 2017, but if Scotland had returned no MPs at all then even she would've commanded an outright majority.
The UK would also risk its place as a permanent member on the UN Security Council if it broke up and it would project a weaker image of the rUK internationally. No genuine Tory would ever back Scottish independence (plus Labour would still have won a majority in England and Wales in 1997, 2001 and 2005 anyway)
Are the voters really that bothered about the Security Council seat? What use is it?
Tony Blair's Labour Party was a very different beast to that which came within a hair's breadth of inflicting Jeremy Corbyn upon us. There is a perfectly plausible argument to be advanced that the end of the Union with (predominantly left-wing) Scotland is a price well worth paying, if it is certain or near certain to permanently reduce the hard left to a harmless rump. It might also, from a certain point of view, be a sad state of affairs, and you might dislike the whole idea intensely, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain logic to the position.
Besides, Labour carefully crafted devolution to play to its political advantage, or what ultimately transpired to be a shockingly complacent and naive interpretation thereof. It would serve the party right if it were ultimately to be ruined by the project.
I don't care what the voters views on it are, they are mostly more interested in domestic policy but the fact is our permanent membership of it is a key component of our power and prestige internationally, something it is the role of the Conservative and Unionist Party to preserve.
Wilson also would have won in England in 1966 and England and Wales in 1964 and October 1974 and Attlee would have won in England alone in 1945 and England and Wales in 1950 too, it would be an unforgiveable folly for any Tory leader to lose Scotland, let alone advocate for it.
That does not mean an English Parliament or regional assemblies cannot be considered too
If Scotland goes independent England would claim to be the successor to the United Kingdom and get the permanent security council seat.
Just as Russia already did the same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia was not the original permanent nation, the USSR was and the USSR no longer exists.
Westminster would ensure this is resolved in the UN before Scotland goes independent and the UK has the right to veto any decision other than recognising England as the successor nation.
Russia alone still had a population of over 100 million and one of the largest militaries in the world, England alone would not. If the UK broke up other nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil and India would use that as an excuse to press their case to take the UK's place amongst the other P5 members and in the General Assembly
And London would listen to their case and veto it.
You don't understand how this works, do you?
If the UK breaks up the UK would no longer have the original seat as first granted to veto, a successor state would have to be chosen and England alone would have much less claim to it than Russia had in 1991 when its request to be treated as the successor state to the USSR on the UN security council was met without objection.
Do you think this happens overnight in a vaccuum. There's a vote, the results are counted and the next day the UK ceases to exist. 🙄
If the UK were to break up democratically it wouldn't happen overnight, it would be negotiated and agreed. Part of that agreement demanded by London would include recognising England as the successor state so that England gets the UNSC seat etc - the SNP don't want or expect that for themselves.
Russia was accepted as continuity successor for the USSR as it was the logical successor and had half the population.
England would be continuity successor for the UK as it is the logical successor and has 84% of the population.
No, the UK would not cease to exist. Any more than it ceased to exist with the secession of Ireland in 1949.
It is frustrating that people cannot grasp this basic point. Scotland would be a new country, not one of two successor states.
The United Kingdom was created after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, arguably it would cease to exist, being replaced by England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland as the successor state
No it wasn’t. That created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was 1801 and the union with Ireland that created the United Kingdom.
Honestly, call yourself an historian...this is so basic even the CIA gets it right. Heck, even Wikipedia does.
Ireland left the Union 100 years, ago, so that Kingdom is no longer part of the UK, if Scotland also left which united the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) there would be no Kingdoms left to unite as Wales is merely a Principality not a Kingdom and Northern Ireland is merely a province not a Kingdom either.
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.
No, it is a Kingdom united with Scotland as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, with the province of Northern Ireland added on too now the Kingdom of Ireland has left.
No it is not. England, Scotland etc ceased to exist as Kingdoms. They're not temporarily united, they do not exist anymore any more than the Kingdom of Northumbria.
Yep, if you zoom in on the clever case map within the gov.uk Covid dashboard then a great many of the MSOAs (the lowest level reporting areas, each with a population of around 7-8,000) are blank, because the total case number isn't shown if less than three have been detected in a week.
My town's almost there. Two of these counting areas, one with five cases during the most recently counted seven day period, the other only three. White spaces all over the map in Southern England, but especially in the West Country.
By 2043 Scotland is projected to be down to 7.7% of the UK population.
We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of seats Scotland has in the HoC, we are about to see the same for Wales. The views of the other nations increasingly count for less and less. It is an issue.
Indeed. Scotland had pretty much the same population about 100 years ago as it does today, whereas the population of England at that time was about 35 million compared to 58 million today.
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.
No, it is a Kingdom united with Scotland as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, with the province of Northern Ireland added on too now the Kingdom of Ireland has left.
No it is not. England, Scotland etc ceased to exist as Kingdoms. They're not temporarily united, they do not exist anymore any more than the Kingdom of Northumbria.
Yes it is, they continued to exist as the United Kingdom of GB and NI.
The Kingdom of Northumbria is a cornerstone of England, if the North left England then England would cease to exist too
By 2043 Scotland is projected to be down to 7.7% of the UK population.
We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of seats Scotland has in the HoC, we are about to see the same for Wales. The views of the other nations increasingly count for less and less. It is an issue.
They have their own Parliaments too now though, unlike England
Yep, if you zoom in on the clever case map within the gov.uk Covid dashboard then a great many of the MSOAs (the lowest level reporting areas, each with a population of around 7-8,000) are blank, because the total case number isn't shown if less than three have been detected in a week.
My town's almost there. Two of these counting areas, one with five cases during the most recently counted seven day period, the other only three. White spaces all over the map in Southern England, but especially in the West Country.
Since when did we become a "shame" society? I thought we were a "dignity" society.
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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
If Scotland left that would be disuniting the UK, there would no longer be that union of the 2 kingdoms anymore and the UK of GB and NI that got the seat in 1945 would no longer exist
Pick up a history book.
There is no union of 2 kingdoms already. The 2 kingdoms were dissolved over 300 years ago.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (one single kingdom in the 18th century) and Northern Ireland anyway, Scotland doesn't enter into 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.
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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
If Scotland left that would be disuniting the UK, there would no longer be that union of the 2 kingdoms anymore and the UK of GB and NI that got the seat in 1945 would no longer exist
Pick up a history book.
There is no union of 2 kingdoms already. The 2 kingdoms were dissolved over 300 years ago.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (one single kingdom in the 18th century) and Northern Ireland anyway, Scotland doesn't enter into it.
And the whole bizarre discussion about the UK's constitutional arrangements and the origins of its adopted name is irrelevant to the point about the United Nations anyway.
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.
I think he wasn't feeling himself. He even went several Scottish-flavoured posts without using "once in a generation"...
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
Are you really saying that if the British people had voted in 1983 for a party with an explicit manifesto promise to leave the EU, that should just be ignored becase of the earlier referendum?
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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
If Scotland left that would be disuniting the UK, there would no longer be that union of the 2 kingdoms anymore and the UK of GB and NI that got the seat in 1945 would no longer exist
Pick up a history book.
There is no union of 2 kingdoms already. The 2 kingdoms were dissolved over 300 years ago.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (one single kingdom in the 18th century) and Northern Ireland anyway, Scotland doesn't enter into it.
The 2 kingdoms were dissolved into 1 Kingdom which would cease to exist if Scotland left it, so the UK would no longer exist, with the Kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland which made up the UK with England no longer part of it.
Same as England would cease to exist with Northumbria in the north of England, or Mercia in the Midlands or Wessex in the South chose to leave 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.
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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
If Scotland left that would be disuniting the UK, there would no longer be that union of the 2 kingdoms anymore and the UK of GB and NI that got the seat in 1945 would no longer exist
Pick up a history book.
There is no union of 2 kingdoms already. The 2 kingdoms were dissolved over 300 years ago.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (one single kingdom in the 18th century) and Northern Ireland anyway, Scotland doesn't enter into it.
And the whole bizarre discussion about the UK's constitutional arrangements and the origins of its adopted name is irrelevant to the point about the United Nations anyway.
It isn't if the UK breaks up and ceases to exist and other UN members object to England's claim to be the permanent successor state on the security council
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
Are you really saying that if the British people had voted in 1983 for a party with an explicit manifesto promise to leave the EU, that should just be ignored becase of the earlier referendum?
Until another referendum had been held after a generation had elapsed since 1975, as it had by 2016, 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?
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
Are you really saying that if the British people had voted in 1983 for a party with an explicit manifesto promise to leave the EU, that should just be ignored becase of the earlier referendum?
Or indeed should the 1975 referendum not have been allowed as only 5 years before a government was elected with an explicit mandate to join the EEC?
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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
If Scotland left that would be disuniting the UK, there would no longer be that union of the 2 kingdoms anymore and the UK of GB and NI that got the seat in 1945 would no longer exist
Pick up a history book.
There is no union of 2 kingdoms already. The 2 kingdoms were dissolved over 300 years ago.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (one single kingdom in the 18th century) and Northern Ireland anyway, Scotland doesn't enter into it.
The 2 kingdoms were dissolved into 1 Kingdom which would cease to exist if Scotland left it, so the UK would no longer exist, with the Kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland which made up the UK with England no longer part of it.
Same as England would cease to exist with Northumbria in the north of England, or Mercia in the Midlands or Wessex in the South chose to leave it
No none of them would cease to exist. If Northumbria went independent the legacy state would be England.
If Scotland goes independent the legacy state would be the United Kingdom.
That's the way it works, unless there is no continuity state, but there would be.
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
Are you really saying that if the British people had voted in 1983 for a party with an explicit manifesto promise to leave the EU, that should just be ignored becase of the earlier referendum?
Or indeed should the 1975 referendum not have been allowed as only 5 years before a government was elected with an explicit mandate to join the EEC?
On the same basis the SNP needed to win a majority in 2011 to then get an independence referendum in 2014 or the Tories needed a majority in 2016 to get the referendum on the EU in 2016, Wilson's government only held the 1975 referendum after winning a majority in 1974
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
It's fascinating you say that, when you whole argument on the UN seat seems to be predicated on the assertion that uniting/disuniting fundamentally changes things and one cannot claim the entity that existed before is the same as the one after. And yet here uniting two kingdoms doesn't mean anything.
If Scotland left that would be disuniting the UK, there would no longer be that union of the 2 kingdoms anymore and the UK of GB and NI that got the seat in 1945 would no longer exist
Pick up a history book.
There is no union of 2 kingdoms already. The 2 kingdoms were dissolved over 300 years ago.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (one single kingdom in the 18th century) and Northern Ireland anyway, Scotland doesn't enter into it.
The 2 kingdoms were dissolved into 1 Kingdom which would cease to exist if Scotland left it, so the UK would no longer exist, with the Kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland which made up the UK with England no longer part of it.
Same as England would cease to exist with Northumbria in the north of England, or Mercia in the Midlands or Wessex in the South chose to leave it
No none of them would cease to exist. If Northumbria went independent the legacy state would be England.
If Scotland goes independent the legacy state would be the United Kingdom.
That's the way it works, unless there is no continuity state, but there would be.
No it would not, if Northumbria went independent the legacy states would be Wessex and Mercia, there would no longer be an England.
If Scotland went independent the legacy state would be England, Wales and NI, there would no longer be a UK
Comments
The predecessor kingdoms whether it be England, Scotland, Mercia, Northumberland, Wessex or any other no longer exist.
It is not the United Kingdoms.
By 2043 Scotland is projected to be down to 7.7% of the UK population.
We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of seats Scotland has in the HoC, we are about to see the same for Wales. The views of the other nations increasingly count for less and less. It is an issue.
My town's almost there. Two of these counting areas, one with five cases during the most recently counted seven day period, the other only three. White spaces all over the map in Southern England, but especially in the West Country.
The Kingdom of Northumbria is a cornerstone of England, if the North left England then England would cease to exist too
Thanks, social media.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312213912_The_Classification_of_Honor-Based_Societies
There is no union of 2 kingdoms already. The 2 kingdoms were dissolved over 300 years ago.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (one single kingdom in the 18th century) and Northern Ireland anyway, Scotland doesn't enter into it.
Same as England would cease to exist with Northumbria in the north of England, or Mercia in the Midlands or Wessex in the South chose to leave it
If Scotland goes independent the legacy state would be the United Kingdom.
That's the way it works, unless there is no continuity state, but there would be.
If Scotland went independent the legacy state would be England, Wales and NI, there would no longer be a UK