On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.
BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.
One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.
I wasn't underestimating DeStantis at all. He like many Trump shills scares the life out of me. Should any of them regain control of the levers of power, the world becomes a more dangerous place
My point was simply that DeStantis is not averse to statistical manipulation for his own ends. Do you dispute that?
That New Yorker article @Leon posted on a previous thread is very well worth reading. Utterly terrifying. China is an evil regime.
This paragraph stood out for me:
"Xinjiang itself has become a laboratory for digital surveillance. By 2013, officials in Ürümqi had begun to affix QR codes to the exterior of homes, which security personnel could scan to obtain details about residents. On Chen Quanguo’s arrival, all cars were fitted with state-issued G.P.S. trackers. Every new cell-phone number had to be registered, and phones were routinely checked; authorities could harvest everything from photos to location data. Wi-Fi “sniffers” were installed to extract identifying data from computers and other devices. Chen also launched a program called Physicals for All, gathering biometric data—blood types, fingerprints, voiceprints, iris patterns—under the guise of medical care. Every Xinjiang resident between the ages of twelve and sixty-five was required to provide the state with a DNA sample."
....."under the guise of medical care .....
For me, this. ...Adrian Zenz, an independent academic who has unearthed troves of government documents on Chen’s crackdown, estimated that there were as many as a million people in the camps—a statistic echoed by the United Nations and others. Not since the Holocaust had a country’s minority population been so systematically detained...
Yes - it is another genocide.
China has a long history of killing its people. Look at what that monster Mao did.
I'm glad I saw HK before its takeover. No way would I travel to China and HK now.
You might want to point that out to the likes of Coca-Cola and all the other righteous companies doing business there
I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.
This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.
This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?
Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
It's certainly part of the establishment (including ideas that most middle-class people take as facts, like gay marriage being fine and climate change being a fact), though I doubt if anyone consciously sits down and reasons it out as you suggest - it just feels natural to go along with establishment peers.
A lot of people would miss it if it was replaced by 20 varieties of Netflix, though. The fact that left and right get worked up about it is not the licence fee (which is not for most people a huge part of their outgoings) but the sense that it's "our" broadcasting system and shouldn't be used to give Jeremy Clarkson/George Galloway/other random hate-figure air time. If Netflix gave included "an hour with George Galloway" among its free offerings, nobody would care.
I get the argument that it's mandatory if you have a TV and pay-per-view would be fairer (and doing it through taxes would be a lot simpler). But there are loads of government expenditure that we pay for through mandatory taxation/fees and we all grumble about some of the expenditure without really questioning the government doing it. There are far worse uses for our collective contribution than an advert-free common broadcaster that makes an effort to be more or less non-partisan. Virtually everyone in the developed world has something similar, apart from the US.
I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?
When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:
I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.
I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.
This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.
This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?
Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
I always think the objections from the right are more genuine. I want to get rid of the licence fee as I think it’s simply unfair. The bias doesn’t really come into it, but whenever someone on the left complains about the BBC, I always say “let’s get rid of the licence fee.”
That’s the difference. The left don’t want to get rid of the fee because deep down they know that it generally supports their view of the world or at least they think it ought to support their view.
The objections from the right were stirred up by criticism of the BBC in newspapers which by pure coincidence were part of media groups with their own television services. The Sun and its sister paper, the Times, obviously with Sky TV, but also the Mail and Express.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
No idea whether a Royal Commission is the right vehicle, but I'd suggest a more humble approach would be more productive.
"Our experience of Brexit has demonstrated how difficult it is to remove a country from even a comparatively brief relationship whilst maintaining good will. We want to ensure that the good relationships between Scotland and the rest of the UK are maintained.
Snow here yesterday and thick frost on the ground.
Not really weather for sitting in any sort of garden, pub or otherwise, and not many are open either around here.
We may sell ice cream for dogs in January but sitting round a warm fire is what's needed in this sort of weather not catching hypothermia. The sky is a wonderful blue and my forsythia is a brilliant burst of yellow outside my window.
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
Add to that, early adopters pay a lot more. With first mover advantage, and the cheapest launch costs for the next half decade at least, Starlink will be a monster. The price will come down as soon as demand starts to slacken.
The dish is being sold at a loss at the moment - it is very advanced tech and lots of it.
Given SpaceX and Elon's history, I wouldn't bet against them reducing the price to any particular number, though.
I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?
When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:
I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.
I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.
And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.
In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.
It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.
It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.
Good morning, everyone.
Yep. In certain parts of the world, there would be 10 days of national mourning for such a death - with all radio stations playing classical music and live entertainment cancelled.
In Thailand, isn’t it a whole year?
Can't say I've ever been in Thailand when someone important died, maybe someone (or several people!) on this forum who's a frequent visitor to Thailand might be better informed on such matters?
The usual maximum in Islamic countries is 40 days, but more commonly it's 10 days or 3 days of various changes.
when the king died any public employee was supposed to wear white for a year. Soi Cowboy had to shut putting all the workers on the breadline. After about a month the go go dancers held a somber parade through the street and then went back to normal.
On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.
BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.
One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.
I wasn't underestimating DeStantis at all. He like many Trump shills scares the life out of me. Should any of them regain control of the levers of power, the world becomes a more dangerous place
My point was simply that DeStantis is not averse to statistical manipulation for his own ends. Do you dispute that?
Have to admit not sure where that comes from but happy to change my view where you have the evidence. I don't think anyone would dispute that FL has been hit hard but there are two key points here (1) it's death rate is average but its' economy has done far better than the likes of CA and NY, which have similar death rates but where everything has been shuttered and (2) the FL vaccine programme has been very effective at reaching the elderly population. Somebody here mentioned the climate giving FL an advantage but they also have a very high elderly population which put them at a disadvantage.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.
Want PR? Lib Dem members. Want independence? SNP members.
That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.
And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.
Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
The problem with that is that some questions come down to negotiations and negotiations can't start until there's both a mandate and a deadline to work towards.
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
Snow here yesterday and thick frost on the ground.
Not really weather for sitting in any sort of garden, pub or otherwise, and not many are open either around here.
We may sell ice cream for dogs in January but sitting round a warm fire is what's needed in this sort of weather not catching hypothermia. The sky is a wonderful blue and my forsythia is a brilliant burst of yellow outside my window.
As a student I would have been out in a beer garden for a couple of pints and a cooked breakfast today. Alas, age and employment have taken their toll…
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.
BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.
One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.
I wasn't underestimating DeStantis at all. He like many Trump shills scares the life out of me. Should any of them regain control of the levers of power, the world becomes a more dangerous place
My point was simply that DeStantis is not averse to statistical manipulation for his own ends. Do you dispute that?
Have to admit not sure where that comes from but happy to change my view where you have the evidence. I don't think anyone would dispute that FL has been hit hard but there are two key points here (1) it's death rate is average but its' economy has done far better than the likes of CA and NY, which have similar death rates but where everything has been shuttered and (2) the FL vaccine programme has been very effective at reaching the elderly population. Somebody here mentioned the climate giving FL an advantage but they also have a very high elderly population which put them at a disadvantage.
Snow here yesterday and thick frost on the ground.
Not really weather for sitting in any sort of garden, pub or otherwise, and not many are open either around here.
We may sell ice cream for dogs in January but sitting round a warm fire is what's needed in this sort of weather not catching hypothermia. The sky is a wonderful blue and my forsythia is a brilliant burst of yellow outside my window.
As a student I would have been out in a beer garden for a couple of pints and a cooked breakfast today. Alas, age and employment have taken their toll…
I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?
When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:
I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.
I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.
And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.
In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.
It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.
It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.
Good morning, everyone.
Yep. In certain parts of the world, there would be 10 days of national mourning for such a death - with all radio stations playing classical music and live entertainment cancelled.
In Thailand, isn’t it a whole year?
Can't say I've ever been in Thailand when someone important died, maybe someone (or several people!) on this forum who's a frequent visitor to Thailand might be better informed on such matters?
The usual maximum in Islamic countries is 40 days, but more commonly it's 10 days or 3 days of various changes.
Went to Thailand almost a year after the Old King died. Black or white clothes, no colours everything still muted. IIRC it lasted a full year.
Snow here yesterday and thick frost on the ground.
Not really weather for sitting in any sort of garden, pub or otherwise, and not many are open either around here.
We may sell ice cream for dogs in January but sitting round a warm fire is what's needed in this sort of weather not catching hypothermia. The sky is a wonderful blue and my forsythia is a brilliant burst of yellow outside my window.
As a student I would have been out in a beer garden for a couple of pints and a cooked breakfast today. Alas, age and employment have taken their toll…
I'm going out on Sunday, looking forward to it. 👍
Won't be able to drink though as driving.
I've done most of the driving since Christmas - so I should have a good reserve of chauffeuring points to claim against.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
Time for a review of the Barnet formula and questions as to why Scotland with so much more money per capita has such godawful services and schools. The Schools used to be the envy of most sensible people..
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
I know a few Starlink users - they are in locations where every other option is more expensive *and* has worse performance.
GEO Satellite internet haș long been a thing - and it's horrible.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The logic of a Commission is that Scotland will be given the choice on its conclusions. That means a second referendum, more economic paralysis, less FDI and more businesses moving elsewhere. Having a referendum is not a cost free choice. The Scottish tax base was damaged by 2014 and has not recovered fully since.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
The fact that Brexit was unplanned in any proper sense is down to 40 years of governments, and parliaments, of all shades hoping that by pretending it could not happen it would not. The UK people knew they were likely only to have one shot at this, as Remain winning would have been taken by the establishment as permanent and final; so Brexit won despite the many pitfalls in the way.
This is true but responsibility for this lies on successive parliaments but most of all on Mrs Thatcher, Major, Blair for presiding over changes with constitutional impact without our consent, and Cameron for a simple failure to prepare for only two outcomes, each of which was clearly possible.
Mrs May and the current PM are relatively innocents in this - even if in not much else.
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
If you are in a rural area it's highly unlikely you have anyone offering a decent land based connection unless you are somewhere where B4RN or similar operates.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
I know a few Starlink users - they are in locations where every other option is more expensive *and* has worse performance.
GEO Satellite internet haș long been a thing - and it's horrible.
I considered it some while back but the delay put me off and I stuck with BT thro gritted teeth after dumping Virgin as I didn't realise at the time that it didn't matter who your terrestrial supplier was....
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
If you are in a rural area it's highly unlikely you have anyone offering a decent land based connection unless you are somewhere where B4RN or similar operates.
Land based is notb going to happen for most and if it does it will be far too slow to arrive . Look for aerial based stuff.. some is being rebroadcast off church steeples... mine comes from an aerial on Leith Hill in Dorking. .
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
No idea whether a Royal Commission is the right vehicle, but I'd suggest a more humble approach would be more productive.
"Our experience of Brexit has demonstrated how difficult it is to remove a country from even a comparatively brief relationship whilst maintaining good will. We want to ensure that the good relationships between Scotland and the rest of the UK are maintained.
..... etc ...."
That is not a line Boris will use. But the Scottish Conservatives can.
In my early days with BBC News at the start of the 1970s one of my roles was as copy taster - scanning all the news report from around the world as they came in and alerting editors to developing major stories. Because someone was sitting in that seat 24/7 365 days of the year there was a file in the draw with the detailed procedures for the BBC as a whole of what should happen when any of the Royal Family should pass away. Many a boring night shift was spent perusing the details. Based on what happened with PP things have changed over the last half century. As I recall Prince Phillip's going would have led to 24 hours of all the networks playing Croydon church bells with a short news summary every 15 minutes.
Why Croydon, I wonder? Were there plans to broadcast the ringing live from Croydon, or was it a recording? If the former, I wonder if that's where there just happened to be a concentration of ringers who could expect to devote themselves to the task (though in that case, you'd have thought they could congregate somewhere in Central London). They're not necessarily the most famous ring in the country, though maybe at the time the local band was particularly strong. If the latter, perhaps that's just what the BBC happened to have a recording of.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.
Want PR? Lib Dem members. Want independence? SNP members.
That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.
And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.
Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
The problem with that is that some questions come down to negotiations and negotiations can't start until there's both a mandate and a deadline to work towards.
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
Neither of my points are matters of negotiation - they are questions that need answers.
You currently get £xbn in tax but spend £x+ybn every year - how are you planning to meet that shortful - is a question to which all the commission is doing is removing possible answers such as North Sea Oil.
What currency do you plan to use - again it needs an answer - if the answer is sterling that's has consequences that you can highlight, if the plan is to join the EU and use the Euro likewise.
In both cases you are forcing decisions to be made which you can then attack.
And the entire point is that Scotland cannot promise everyone their personal unicorn
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The logic of a Commission is that Scotland will be given the choice on its conclusions. That means a second referendum, more economic paralysis, less FDI and more businesses moving elsewhere. Having a referendum is not a cost free choice. The Scottish tax base was damaged by 2014 and has not recovered fully since.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
There should be a Commission if parties pledging a Commission win an election.
If parties pledging alternative paths, like straight to a referendum, or no constitutional meddling win, then so be it.
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
I know a few Starlink users - they are in locations where every other option is more expensive *and* has worse performance.
GEO Satellite internet haș long been a thing - and it's horrible.
I considered it some while back but the delay put me off and I stuck with BT thro gritted teeth after dumping Virgin as I didn't realise at the time that it didn't matter who your terrestrial supplier was....
KCom are currently pushing out of their traditional Hull base into some of the villages of East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire. It should be an interesting test of how viable it is to build-out these types of communities.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.
Want PR? Lib Dem members. Want independence? SNP members.
That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.
And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.
Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
The problem with that is that some questions come down to negotiations and negotiations can't start until there's both a mandate and a deadline to work towards.
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
Neither of my points are matters of negotiation - they are questions that need answers.
You currently get £xbn in tax but spend £x+ybn every year - how are you planning to meet that shortful - is a question to which all the commission is doing is removing possible answers such as North Sea Oil.
What currency do you plan to use - again it needs an answer - if the answer is sterling that's has consequences that you can highlight, if the plan is to join the EU and use the Euro likewise.
In both cases you are forcing decisions to be made which you can then attack.
And the entire point is that Scotland cannot promise everyone their personal unicorn
They are matters of negotiation.
Firstly regarding tax both parties dispute the tax and revenue figures by disputing how much is sent in which direction. Scot nationalists claim they're being taxed too much for Westminster based things and don't get money back so they would be better off independent. Scot unionists and many in England claim that English money is going to Scotland via the Barnett formula. Plus what happens to assets, liabilities, debts, pensions etc?
Brexit was much "cleaner" than Scottish independence will be because the UK economy and tax system is much less integrated with Europe than Scotland is with the UK. Still the first few years of Article 50 were dominated by negotiations over the 'divorce bill'. There was no straight answer, parts of it needed negotiating. At least with Brexit it was definitely accepted that the UK was a net contributor to the EU, even Remainers accepted that, but with Scottish Independence both sides claim the same thing.
Secondly with currency it again comes to negotiations. If the answer is sterling then there'll need to be negotiations between Scotland and Westminster. If the answer is the Euro, negotiations between Scotland and the EU.
People can come up with these questions already, without a Commission. That's politics. No Commission can find the answer, since the answer requires negotiations. A Commission is just an excuse to get a report to say what you want to say already, but dressed up with a pretty bow, or a can kicking exercise.
On topic: DeSantis sounds gruesome but on the betting it works great for me if he emerges as the GOP candidate. I've laid everyone with the name Trump and also a few other kooks such as Cruz, Carson, Pompeo, Carlson. But this character, DeSantis, I've left alone.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.
Want PR? Lib Dem members. Want independence? SNP members.
That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.
And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.
Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
The problem with that is that some questions come down to negotiations and negotiations can't start until there's both a mandate and a deadline to work towards.
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
Neither of my points are matters of negotiation - they are questions that need answers.
You currently get £xbn in tax but spend £x+ybn every year - how are you planning to meet that shortful - is a question to which all the commission is doing is removing possible answers such as North Sea Oil.
What currency do you plan to use - again it needs an answer - if the answer is sterling that's has consequences that you can highlight, if the plan is to join the EU and use the Euro likewise.
In both cases you are forcing decisions to be made which you can then attack.
And the entire point is that Scotland cannot promise everyone their personal unicorn
They are matters of negotiation.
Firstly regarding tax both parties dispute the tax and revenue figures by disputing how much is sent in which direction. Scot nationalists claim they're being taxed too much for Westminster based things and don't get money back so they would be better off independent. Scot unionists and many in England claim that English money is going to Scotland via the Barnett formula. Plus what happens to assets, liabilities, debts, pensions etc?
Brexit was much "cleaner" than Scottish independence will be because the UK economy and tax system is much less integrated with Europe than Scotland is with the UK. Still the first few years of Article 50 were dominated by negotiations over the 'divorce bill'. There was no straight answer, parts of it needed negotiating. At least with Brexit it was definitely accepted that the UK was a net contributor to the EU, even Remainers accepted that, but with Scottish Independence both sides claim the same thing.
Secondly with currency it again comes to negotiations. If the answer is sterling then there'll need to be negotiations between Scotland and Westminster. If the answer is the Euro, negotiations between Scotland and the EU.
People can come up with these questions already, without a Commission. That's politics. No Commission can find the answer, since the answer requires negotiations. A Commission is just an excuse to get a report to say what you want to say already, but dressed up with a pretty bow, or a can kicking exercise.
Go back and read what I posted - everything you post doesn't matter when the actual issue will be one of HMRC saying we receive £xbn in tax from Scotland, Scotland as a whole spends £ybn.
There is no negotiation required to answer the question "how are you planning to meet the shortfall" - and the fact you say there should be a negotiation means I can vote Yes for independence and the SNP can blame cruel London when it goes pearshaped.
Which is why no one sane is going to let the SNP do so..
On topic: DeSantis sounds gruesome but on the betting it works great for me if he emerges as the GOP candidate. I've laid everyone with the name Trump and also a few other kooks such as Cruz, Carson, Pompeo, Carlson. But this character, DeSantis, I've left alone.
That New Yorker article @Leon posted on a previous thread is very well worth reading. Utterly terrifying. China is an evil regime.
This paragraph stood out for me:
"Xinjiang itself has become a laboratory for digital surveillance. By 2013, officials in Ürümqi had begun to affix QR codes to the exterior of homes, which security personnel could scan to obtain details about residents. On Chen Quanguo’s arrival, all cars were fitted with state-issued G.P.S. trackers. Every new cell-phone number had to be registered, and phones were routinely checked; authorities could harvest everything from photos to location data. Wi-Fi “sniffers” were installed to extract identifying data from computers and other devices. Chen also launched a program called Physicals for All, gathering biometric data—blood types, fingerprints, voiceprints, iris patterns—under the guise of medical care. Every Xinjiang resident between the ages of twelve and sixty-five was required to provide the state with a DNA sample."
....."under the guise of medical care .....
For me, this. ...Adrian Zenz, an independent academic who has unearthed troves of government documents on Chen’s crackdown, estimated that there were as many as a million people in the camps—a statistic echoed by the United Nations and others. Not since the Holocaust had a country’s minority population been so systematically detained...
Yes - it is another genocide.
China has a long history of killing its people. Look at what that monster Mao did.
I'm glad I saw HK before its takeover. No way would I travel to China and HK now.
I visited Hong Kong in 1997. I wouldn't go back now, either. South Korea is on my to visit list.
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.
Want PR? Lib Dem members. Want independence? SNP members.
That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.
And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.
Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
The problem with that is that some questions come down to negotiations and negotiations can't start until there's both a mandate and a deadline to work towards.
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
Neither of my points are matters of negotiation - they are questions that need answers.
You currently get £xbn in tax but spend £x+ybn every year - how are you planning to meet that shortful - is a question to which all the commission is doing is removing possible answers such as North Sea Oil.
What currency do you plan to use - again it needs an answer - if the answer is sterling that's has consequences that you can highlight, if the plan is to join the EU and use the Euro likewise.
In both cases you are forcing decisions to be made which you can then attack.
And the entire point is that Scotland cannot promise everyone their personal unicorn
They are matters of negotiation.
Firstly regarding tax both parties dispute the tax and revenue figures by disputing how much is sent in which direction. Scot nationalists claim they're being taxed too much for Westminster based things and don't get money back so they would be better off independent. Scot unionists and many in England claim that English money is going to Scotland via the Barnett formula. Plus what happens to assets, liabilities, debts, pensions etc?
Brexit was much "cleaner" than Scottish independence will be because the UK economy and tax system is much less integrated with Europe than Scotland is with the UK. Still the first few years of Article 50 were dominated by negotiations over the 'divorce bill'. There was no straight answer, parts of it needed negotiating. At least with Brexit it was definitely accepted that the UK was a net contributor to the EU, even Remainers accepted that, but with Scottish Independence both sides claim the same thing.
Secondly with currency it again comes to negotiations. If the answer is sterling then there'll need to be negotiations between Scotland and Westminster. If the answer is the Euro, negotiations between Scotland and the EU.
People can come up with these questions already, without a Commission. That's politics. No Commission can find the answer, since the answer requires negotiations. A Commission is just an excuse to get a report to say what you want to say already, but dressed up with a pretty bow, or a can kicking exercise.
Go back and read what I posted - everything you post doesn't matter when the actual issue will be one of HMRC saying we receive £xbn in tax from Scotland, Scotland as a whole spends £ybn.
There is no negotiation required to answer the question "how are you planning to meet the shortfall" - and the fact you say there should be a negotiation means I can vote Yes for independence and the SNP can blame cruel London when it goes pearshaped.
Which is why no one sane is going to let the SNP do so..
There is a need for a negotiation as the different parties dispute what is entailed as Scotland revenue and Scotland spending.
Interest expenditure - how much is Scottish? Military expenditure - how much is Scottish?
Etc etc etc. All issues for negotiations or future policies.
The nationalists will just say that Scotland raises more than it spends, the unionists the opposite. No Commission can or will answer the question, though it can give the "right" answer to one side if packed with that sides members.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.
Want PR? Lib Dem members. Want independence? SNP members.
That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.
And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.
Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
The problem with that is that some questions come down to negotiations and negotiations can't start until there's both a mandate and a deadline to work towards.
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
Neither of my points are matters of negotiation - they are questions that need answers.
You currently get £xbn in tax but spend £x+ybn every year - how are you planning to meet that shortful - is a question to which all the commission is doing is removing possible answers such as North Sea Oil.
What currency do you plan to use - again it needs an answer - if the answer is sterling that's has consequences that you can highlight, if the plan is to join the EU and use the Euro likewise.
In both cases you are forcing decisions to be made which you can then attack.
And the entire point is that Scotland cannot promise everyone their personal unicorn
They are matters of negotiation.
Firstly regarding tax both parties dispute the tax and revenue figures by disputing how much is sent in which direction. Scot nationalists claim they're being taxed too much for Westminster based things and don't get money back so they would be better off independent. Scot unionists and many in England claim that English money is going to Scotland via the Barnett formula. Plus what happens to assets, liabilities, debts, pensions etc?
Brexit was much "cleaner" than Scottish independence will be because the UK economy and tax system is much less integrated with Europe than Scotland is with the UK. Still the first few years of Article 50 were dominated by negotiations over the 'divorce bill'. There was no straight answer, parts of it needed negotiating. At least with Brexit it was definitely accepted that the UK was a net contributor to the EU, even Remainers accepted that, but with Scottish Independence both sides claim the same thing.
Secondly with currency it again comes to negotiations. If the answer is sterling then there'll need to be negotiations between Scotland and Westminster. If the answer is the Euro, negotiations between Scotland and the EU.
People can come up with these questions already, without a Commission. That's politics. No Commission can find the answer, since the answer requires negotiations. A Commission is just an excuse to get a report to say what you want to say already, but dressed up with a pretty bow, or a can kicking exercise.
Go back and read what I posted - everything you post doesn't matter when the actual issue will be one of HMRC saying we receive £xbn in tax from Scotland, Scotland as a whole spends £ybn.
There is no negotiation required to answer the question "how are you planning to meet the shortfall" - and the fact you say there should be a negotiation means I can vote Yes for independence and the SNP can blame cruel London when it goes pearshaped.
Which is why no one sane is going to let the SNP do so..
There is a need for a negotiation as the different parties dispute what is entailed as Scotland revenue and Scotland spending.
Interest expenditure - how much is Scottish? Military expenditure - how much is Scottish?
Etc etc etc. All issues for negotiations or future policies.
The nationalists will just say that Scotland raises more than it spends, the unionists the opposite. No Commission can or will answer the question, though it can give the "right" answer to one side if packed with that sides members.
You are aware that if both figures were zero I suspect the Scottish Government budget is still greater than it's revenue...
But even if I ignore interest - the military issue is simple. It goes what do you want? That will cost £xbn.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The logic of a Commission is that Scotland will be given the choice on its conclusions. That means a second referendum, more economic paralysis, less FDI and more businesses moving elsewhere. Having a referendum is not a cost free choice. The Scottish tax base was damaged by 2014 and has not recovered fully since.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
There should be a Commission if parties pledging a Commission win an election.
If parties pledging alternative paths, like straight to a referendum, or no constitutional meddling win, then so be it.
If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result.
Salmond will then urge Sturgeon to declare UDI which she has said she will not do.
A commission I agree is an irrelevance, it will not stop the above.
The only way to ensure no indyref2 is to vote for a Unionist majority at Holyrood in May
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
I know a few Starlink users - they are in locations where every other option is more expensive *and* has worse performance.
GEO Satellite internet haș long been a thing - and it's horrible.
I considered it some while back but the delay put me off and I stuck with BT thro gritted teeth after dumping Virgin as I didn't realise at the time that it didn't matter who your terrestrial supplier was....
KCom are currently pushing out of their traditional Hull base into some of the villages of East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire. It should be an interesting test of how viable it is to build-out these types of communities.
Rural FTTP is perfectly feasible and commercial. If, that is, Openreach are not involved. Offering connectivity to farmers as an alternative to wayleave payments and using methods such as mole ploughing and micro trenching the build cost is around £600 per property and uptake is near 100%. Our local provider offers 1Gbps for £30pm and £150pm for 10Gps - download and upload.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
2/3 of Holyrood seats would be 85 for the SNP, Alba and Greens combined.
Even the best polls for the Nationalists do not give them that much at present, so on that basis Boris can still refuse to recognise any indyref2
My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.
Some people really are getting back to normal.
Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial. Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
100 quid per ?
Month
Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
Lucky you, you won't be their customer.
For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.
It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
Search for similar providers. Companies are setting up all the time...
If you are in a rural area it's highly unlikely you have anyone offering a decent land based connection unless you are somewhere where B4RN or similar operates.
The fellow residents of my 'village' seem to think they live in deepest darkest rural Northumberland despite living less than 10 miles from Newcastle City Centre. We have full fibre to the property.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.
Want PR? Lib Dem members. Want independence? SNP members.
That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.
And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.
Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
The problem with that is that some questions come down to negotiations and negotiations can't start until there's both a mandate and a deadline to work towards.
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
Neither of my points are matters of negotiation - they are questions that need answers.
You currently get £xbn in tax but spend £x+ybn every year - how are you planning to meet that shortful - is a question to which all the commission is doing is removing possible answers such as North Sea Oil.
What currency do you plan to use - again it needs an answer - if the answer is sterling that's has consequences that you can highlight, if the plan is to join the EU and use the Euro likewise.
In both cases you are forcing decisions to be made which you can then attack.
And the entire point is that Scotland cannot promise everyone their personal unicorn
They are matters of negotiation.
Firstly regarding tax both parties dispute the tax and revenue figures by disputing how much is sent in which direction. Scot nationalists claim they're being taxed too much for Westminster based things and don't get money back so they would be better off independent. Scot unionists and many in England claim that English money is going to Scotland via the Barnett formula. Plus what happens to assets, liabilities, debts, pensions etc?
Brexit was much "cleaner" than Scottish independence will be because the UK economy and tax system is much less integrated with Europe than Scotland is with the UK. Still the first few years of Article 50 were dominated by negotiations over the 'divorce bill'. There was no straight answer, parts of it needed negotiating. At least with Brexit it was definitely accepted that the UK was a net contributor to the EU, even Remainers accepted that, but with Scottish Independence both sides claim the same thing.
Secondly with currency it again comes to negotiations. If the answer is sterling then there'll need to be negotiations between Scotland and Westminster. If the answer is the Euro, negotiations between Scotland and the EU.
People can come up with these questions already, without a Commission. That's politics. No Commission can find the answer, since the answer requires negotiations. A Commission is just an excuse to get a report to say what you want to say already, but dressed up with a pretty bow, or a can kicking exercise.
Go back and read what I posted - everything you post doesn't matter when the actual issue will be one of HMRC saying we receive £xbn in tax from Scotland, Scotland as a whole spends £ybn.
There is no negotiation required to answer the question "how are you planning to meet the shortfall" - and the fact you say there should be a negotiation means I can vote Yes for independence and the SNP can blame cruel London when it goes pearshaped.
Which is why no one sane is going to let the SNP do so..
There is a need for a negotiation as the different parties dispute what is entailed as Scotland revenue and Scotland spending.
Interest expenditure - how much is Scottish? Military expenditure - how much is Scottish?
Etc etc etc. All issues for negotiations or future policies.
The nationalists will just say that Scotland raises more than it spends, the unionists the opposite. No Commission can or will answer the question, though it can give the "right" answer to one side if packed with that sides members.
You are aware that if both figures were zero I suspect the Scottish Government budget is still greater than it's revenue...
But even if I ignore interest - the military issue is simple. It goes what do you want? That will cost £xbn.
Are you sure it's enough?
The point is neither side will ever accept the others figures. Both sides will claim some of the same revenue as their own, nationalists will seek to maximise Scottish revenue and minimise Scottish liabilities. rUK would do the opposite.
This issue is already well debated every single year when the GERS figures come out. Nationalists claim the GERS are nonsense, the Unionists that they're representative or even optimistic.
What is a Commission going to do that GERS and general politics can't achieve?
A Commission can work if one party can unilaterally act. Eg if Parliament can say "this is the law" and pass its proposals. But once you've got multiple competing parties and Parliaments looking after their own interests and unwilling to cooperate first it's another matter.
On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.
BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.
One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.
I wasn't underestimating DeStantis at all. He like many Trump shills scares the life out of me. Should any of them regain control of the levers of power, the world becomes a more dangerous place
My point was simply that DeStantis is not averse to statistical manipulation for his own ends. Do you dispute that?
Have to admit not sure where that comes from but happy to change my view where you have the evidence. I don't think anyone would dispute that FL has been hit hard but there are two key points here (1) it's death rate is average but its' economy has done far better than the likes of CA and NY, which have similar death rates but where everything has been shuttered and (2) the FL vaccine programme has been very effective at reaching the elderly population. Somebody here mentioned the climate giving FL an advantage but they also have a very high elderly population which put them at a disadvantage.
The under reporting of Florida Covid fatality rates was widely reported last summer, here and in the US
Offering evidence of another charlatan to imply they are all at it is a great 'look squirrel' tactic.
Link to the under-reporting reports please? Should be easy to find given their widespread reporting.
All charlatans should be reported, Democrat or Republican. I'm happy to criticise both but equating Cuomo and DeSantis as the same shows how you view Democrat misdeeds as ones to be minimised. Cuomo's actions literally led to the deaths of thousands of people and all because he wanted to look good, and then he tried to cover it up. Even DeSantis' enemies haven't accused him of such.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
On topic: DeSantis sounds gruesome but on the betting it works great for me if he emerges as the GOP candidate. I've laid everyone with the name Trump and also a few other kooks such as Cruz, Carson, Pompeo, Carlson. But this character, DeSantis, I've left alone.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
No, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and Boris will correctly refuse indyref2 on that basis.
The only way the SNP get an indyref2 and the UK government to recognise the result is for the Nationalists to win a majority in May at Holyrood and at the 2024 UK general election hold the balance of power in a hung parliament so Starmer has to agree to indyref2
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
They will always be able to find a pretext. Brexit isn't even a particularly good one, since there was no lasting move to Yes in the opinion polls after the vote. They will manufacture some spurious grievance with the government in London and demand another vote.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
No, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and Boris will correctly refuse indyref2 on that basis.
The only way the SNP get an indyref2 and the UK government to recognise the result is for the Nationalists to win a majority in May at Holyrood and at the 2024 UK general election hold the balance of power in a hung parliament so Starmer has to agree to indyref2
On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.
BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.
One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.
I wasn't underestimating DeStantis at all. He like many Trump shills scares the life out of me. Should any of them regain control of the levers of power, the world becomes a more dangerous place
My point was simply that DeStantis is not averse to statistical manipulation for his own ends. Do you dispute that?
Have to admit not sure where that comes from but happy to change my view where you have the evidence. I don't think anyone would dispute that FL has been hit hard but there are two key points here (1) it's death rate is average but its' economy has done far better than the likes of CA and NY, which have similar death rates but where everything has been shuttered and (2) the FL vaccine programme has been very effective at reaching the elderly population. Somebody here mentioned the climate giving FL an advantage but they also have a very high elderly population which put them at a disadvantage.
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
I know it's a bit early for this but I'm seeing WH24 as being very very difficult for the Republicans. I rate their chances as not much higher than those of Labour winning most seats in our probable GE in that same year.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
Time for a review of the Barnet formula and questions as to why Scotland with so much more money per capita has such godawful services and schools. The Schools used to be the envy of most sensible people..
Time to focus on 14 years of mismanagement, neglect, lack of interest and incompetence by the SNP in government. This focus on independence and a second referendum alone gives them a completely free pass for that. It's madness.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
No, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and Boris will correctly refuse indyref2 on that basis.
The only way the SNP get an indyref2 and the UK government to recognise the result is for the Nationalists to win a majority in May at Holyrood and at the 2024 UK general election hold the balance of power in a hung parliament so Starmer has to agree to indyref2
Oh look, it's this post again.
If only HYUFD could confine himself to once in a generation on this issue...
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
Time for a review of the Barnet formula and questions as to why Scotland with so much more money per capita has such godawful services and schools. The Schools used to be the envy of most sensible people..
Time to focus on 14 years of mismanagement, neglect, lack of interest and incompetence by the SNP in government. This focus on independence and a second referendum alone gives them a completely free pass for that. It's madness.
There's a way to end the madness and make Hollyrood fully accountable for its performance, but you won't like it.
f a referendum on EU membership were to be held tomorrow, with the choice of the UK re-joining the EU or staying out of the EU, how would you vote?
Re-join: 39% Stay out: 46%
Given the shellacking that the EU has received in this country over the last few months, it strikes me that 39% wishing to rejoin is remarkably high; I'd have predicted more like 25%. In the long term, this augurs rather well for pro-Europeans, assuming the reputation of the EU improves once Covid is over (which I know many on here will think is a crass assumption).
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The logic of a Commission is that Scotland will be given the choice on its conclusions. That means a second referendum, more economic paralysis, less FDI and more businesses moving elsewhere. Having a referendum is not a cost free choice. The Scottish tax base was damaged by 2014 and has not recovered fully since.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
There should be a Commission if parties pledging a Commission win an election.
If parties pledging alternative paths, like straight to a referendum, or no constitutional meddling win, then so be it.
If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result.
Salmond will then urge Sturgeon to declare UDI which she has said she will not do.
A commission I agree is an irrelevance, it will not stop the above.
The only way to ensure no indyref2 is to vote for a Unionist majority at Holyrood in May
You really do not know Scots politics
Nicola Sturgeon is an extremely capable politician and she will only hold a referendum through a Section 30 agreement with Westminster and in an article last week she is prepared to wait until 2023 and does not expect Independence before 2026
Salmond is a lost cause, widely disliked across Scotland, and may not even be elected to the Scottish Parliament
Your hope that there will be unionist majority is forlorn with Douglas Ross a disaster for the Scots conservatives
Nicola will obtain a majority for the SNP on her own, but even then the Greens will back her legal pursuit of Independence, with Salmond and his UDI followers marginalised and irrelevant
And when Nicola does not hold a referendum this year will you accept for the first time on PB that you were wrong as we all await that as a monumental moment in PB history !!!!!!!
f a referendum on EU membership were to be held tomorrow, with the choice of the UK re-joining the EU or staying out of the EU, how would you vote?
Re-join: 39% Stay out: 46%
Given the shellacking that the EU has received in this country over the last few months, it strikes me that 39% wishing to rejoin is remarkably high; I'd have predicted more like 25%. In the long term, this augurs rather well for pro-Europeans, assuming the reputation of the EU improves once Covid is over (which I know many on here will think is a crass assumption).
True but it's also a bit meaningless since we have no idea what the terms would be. Would we have to join the euro? Would we still get our rebate? etc. etc.
f a referendum on EU membership were to be held tomorrow, with the choice of the UK re-joining the EU or staying out of the EU, how would you vote?
Re-join: 39% Stay out: 46%
Given the shellacking that the EU has received in this country over the last few months, it strikes me that 39% wishing to rejoin is remarkably high; I'd have predicted more like 25%. In the long term, this augurs rather well for pro-Europeans, assuming the reputation of the EU improves once Covid is over (which I know many on here will think is a crass assumption).
Very crass IMO.
As time goes on I expect if people are being honest then both figures will decline and don't know will rise as people stop thinking about EU membership as an issue to discuss. 39% for rejoining is probably higher than it will get in the future, but then again 46% for staying out might be higher than it gets in the future too.
Life is going on and there'll be little reason or incentive in either the UK or the EU in the future to reopen this debate. Quite frankly I doubt many in the EU would want us back now, if they were being honest.
I suspect years from now the UK (or at least England, not expecting the UK to survive due to Blair's devolution) will play the role of Canada to the EU as the USA. Neighbours, but no intentions to join up.
f a referendum on EU membership were to be held tomorrow, with the choice of the UK re-joining the EU or staying out of the EU, how would you vote?
Re-join: 39% Stay out: 46%
Given the shellacking that the EU has received in this country over the last few months, it strikes me that 39% wishing to rejoin is remarkably high; I'd have predicted more like 25%. In the long term, this augurs rather well for pro-Europeans, assuming the reputation of the EU improves once Covid is over (which I know many on here will think is a crass assumption).
The problem is that any attempt to push rejoin, no need for Big Dom brainstorming a new slogan for the bus.....EU actions have written it for them and can't be erased....
"This the bus the EU were happy to throw your granny under"
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
The fact that Brexit was unplanned in any proper sense is down to 40 years of governments, and parliaments, of all shades hoping that by pretending it could not happen it would not. The UK people knew they were likely only to have one shot at this, as Remain winning would have been taken by the establishment as permanent and final; so Brexit won despite the many pitfalls in the way.
This is true but responsibility for this lies on successive parliaments but most of all on Mrs Thatcher, Major, Blair for presiding over changes with constitutional impact without our consent, and Cameron for a simple failure to prepare for only two outcomes, each of which was clearly possible.
Mrs May and the current PM are relatively innocents in this - even if in not much else.
The original accession was after several years of fruitless applications led by Conservative Governments, and blocked. by Gen de Gaulle. After his death a Conservative Government took us in and that was confirmed by a substantial majority in a referendum organised by the Labour Government in 1975. The result was greeted with rejoicing in, IIRC all newspapers except the Morning Star.. It is not, in my experience anyway, normal to go into a marriage planning for a divorce.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
They will always be able to find a pretext. Brexit isn't even a particularly good one, since there was no lasting move to Yes in the opinion polls after the vote. They will manufacture some spurious grievance with the government in London and demand another vote.
Brexit is a compelling justification. It's a million miles from spurious. Leaving the EU is a massive change and Scotland voted clearly against it. Furthermore, it was a part of the Yes argument in 2014 that remaining in the UK would safeguard Scotland's place in the EU and the Single Market. If this is not material change in circumstances, what on earth is?
The rest of your comments just sound exactly as I described. Illogical and jaundiced. In particular, please answer this key question. Why do you think the Scottish people would keep electing SNP governments to get Sindy referendums to keep voting No in? What is it about the Scots which makes you think they'd behave in such a ridiculous manner?
It's going to be a lot less funny when the Scottish government has to write a cheque to honour the guarantee for £500m of bonds issued by Greensill on behalf of Gupta without anything approaching due diligence, competence, value for money or simply common sense on the part of the Scottish government.
If Scotland had voted to leave the UK it would be out of the EU too. Ironically, the UK then would not have held an EU referendum.
I'm curious if those citing the Scots voting to stay in the EU would be calling for England to leave the UK if the vote had gone the other way.
Plus of course if keeping membership of the EU is the sole reason a majority of Scots would vote for independence from the UK they would not be voting for genuine independence in reality anyway, just voting to replace rule from Westminster with rule from Brussels
If Scotland had voted to leave the UK it would be out of the EU too. Ironically, the UK then would not have held an EU referendum.
I'm curious if those citing the Scots voting to stay in the EU would be calling for England to leave the UK if the vote had gone the other way.
Why wouldn't the UK have held an EU referendum?
It was pledged by Cameron prior to the Scottish referendum?
You really think Cameron's backbenchers would have let him drop the referendum? When over a hundred had demanded it which is why he gave in (not UKIP or anything else). He couldn't afford to alienate that many MPs, no Prime Minister can.
If Scotland had voted to leave the UK it would be out of the EU too. Ironically, the UK then would not have held an EU referendum.
I'm curious if those citing the Scots voting to stay in the EU would be calling for England to leave the UK if the vote had gone the other way.
Plus of course if keeping membership of the EU is the sole reason a majority of Scots would vote for independence from the UK they would not be voting for genuine independence in reality anyway, just voting to replace rule from Westminster with rule from Brussels
Of course you can leave the EU without "consent" from Brussels but you can't leave the UK without "consent" from Westminster.
Florida Governor De Santis certainly has an excellent chance of the GOP nomination if Trump does not run again in 2024.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
I know it's a bit early for this but I'm seeing WH24 as being very very difficult for the Republicans. I rate their chances as not much higher than those of Labour winning most seats in our probable GE in that same year.
Agreed, the GOP have a much higher chance of retaking the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms than winning the White House again in 2024 in my view
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
They will always be able to find a pretext. Brexit isn't even a particularly good one, since there was no lasting move to Yes in the opinion polls after the vote. They will manufacture some spurious grievance with the government in London and demand another vote.
Brexit is a compelling justification. It's a million miles from spurious. Leaving the EU is a massive change and Scotland voted clearly against it. Furthermore, it was a part of the Yes argument in 2014 that remaining in the UK would safeguard Scotland's place in the EU and the Single Market. If this is not material change in circumstances, what on earth is?
The rest of your comments just sound exactly as I described. Illogical and jaundiced. In particular, please answer this key question. Why do you think the Scottish people would keep electing SNP governments to get Sindy referendums to keep voting No in? What is it about the Scots which makes you think they'd behave in such a ridiculous manner?
The country is split 50/50. The SNP do well in elections because the 50% Yes vote in united behind them while the No vote is divided three ways.
What we can safely say is that despite Brexit and Covid it is demonstrably not the case that the "settled will" of the Scottish people is supportive of independence. If there was another referendum anytime soon, and Yes won, it would almost certainly be by the skin of their teeth, leaving the country even more bitterly divided, especially once the economic realities started biting.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
The fact that Brexit was unplanned in any proper sense is down to 40 years of governments, and parliaments, of all shades hoping that by pretending it could not happen it would not. The UK people knew they were likely only to have one shot at this, as Remain winning would have been taken by the establishment as permanent and final; so Brexit won despite the many pitfalls in the way.
This is true but responsibility for this lies on successive parliaments but most of all on Mrs Thatcher, Major, Blair for presiding over changes with constitutional impact without our consent, and Cameron for a simple failure to prepare for only two outcomes, each of which was clearly possible.
Mrs May and the current PM are relatively innocents in this - even if in not much else.
The original accession was after several years of fruitless applications led by Conservative Governments, and blocked. by Gen de Gaulle. After his death a Conservative Government took us in and that was confirmed by a substantial majority in a referendum organised by the Labour Government in 1975. The result was greeted with rejoicing in, IIRC all newspapers except the Morning Star.. It is not, in my experience anyway, normal to go into a marriage planning for a divorce.
I voted to leave. I would have voted to stay in, and support remaining a member right up until the 1990s. The institution people were voting to remain in 1974 was out of all recognition to the institution we voted remain or leave in 2016. Our leaders knew quite well that while a referendum to leave the EC/EEC?EU itself would probably fail, a referendum on whether or not to deepen integration and open borders to free movement would absolutely fail and there would be no progress. Even the most pro EU nations struggle to get changes via referendum.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The logic of a Commission is that Scotland will be given the choice on its conclusions. That means a second referendum, more economic paralysis, less FDI and more businesses moving elsewhere. Having a referendum is not a cost free choice. The Scottish tax base was damaged by 2014 and has not recovered fully since.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
There should be a Commission if parties pledging a Commission win an election.
If parties pledging alternative paths, like straight to a referendum, or no constitutional meddling win, then so be it.
If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result.
Salmond will then urge Sturgeon to declare UDI which she has said she will not do.
A commission I agree is an irrelevance, it will not stop the above.
The only way to ensure no indyref2 is to vote for a Unionist majority at Holyrood in May
You really do not know Scots politics
Nicola Sturgeon is an extremely capable politician and she will only hold a referendum through a Section 30 agreement with Westminster and in an article last week she is prepared to wait until 2023 and does not expect Independence before 2026
Salmond is a lost cause, widely disliked across Scotland, and may not even be elected to the Scottish Parliament
Your hope that there will be unionist majority is forlorn with Douglas Ross a disaster for the Scots conservatives
Nicola will obtain a majority for the SNP on her own, but even then the Greens will back her legal pursuit of Independence, with Salmond and his UDI followers marginalised and irrelevant
And when Nicola does not hold a referendum this year will you accept for the first time on PB that you were wrong as we all await that as a monumental moment in PB history !!!!!!!
The SNP have already made clear they will hold an independence referendum if they win a majority with or without UK government consent. They will do so if they get that majority, Boris will ignore it, Unionists will boycott it.
I would not be so certain on an SNP majority however with Unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote and Alba splitting the SNP list vote now too.
It's going to be a lot less funny when the Scottish government has to write a cheque to honour the guarantee for £500m of bonds issued by Greensill on behalf of Gupta without anything approaching due diligence, competence, value for money or simply common sense on the part of the Scottish government.
Then will be the time for your tears.
I well remember you highlighting this at the time.
More because some 2010 Redwall Labour voters who voted for Brown and for Leave in 2016 are now voting Tory post Brexit and for Boris while some 2010 Cameron Conservative voters who voted Remain in 2016 are now voting Starmer Labour or LD
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
They will always be able to find a pretext. Brexit isn't even a particularly good one, since there was no lasting move to Yes in the opinion polls after the vote. They will manufacture some spurious grievance with the government in London and demand another vote.
Brexit is a compelling justification. It's a million miles from spurious. Leaving the EU is a massive change and Scotland voted clearly against it. Furthermore, it was a part of the Yes argument in 2014 that remaining in the UK would safeguard Scotland's place in the EU and the Single Market. If this is not material change in circumstances, what on earth is?
The rest of your comments just sound exactly as I described. Illogical and jaundiced. In particular, please answer this key question. Why do you think the Scottish people would keep electing SNP governments to get Sindy referendums to keep voting No in? What is it about the Scots which makes you think they'd behave in such a ridiculous manner?
The country is split 50/50. The SNP do well in elections because the 50% Yes vote in united behind them while the No vote is divided three ways.
What we can safely say is that despite Brexit and Covid it is demonstrably not the case that the "settled will" of the Scottish people is supportive of independence. If there was another referendum anytime soon, and Yes won, it would almost certainly be by the skin of their teeth, leaving the country even more bitterly divided, especially once the economic realities started biting.
The divisions would change. Instead of being divided on the issue of whether to seek independence or not, the parties would eventually need to stand on a platform of what to do as an independent nation. How to fix issues in the economy, health, education etc
All that stuff that Hollyrood is meant to be dealing with now, but is avoiding scrutiny on, will come to the fore once the independence issue is killed off one way or another. Perhaps a second no vote will kill it off, a yes vote definitely will. Simply refusing to have another vote because you're too frit you might lose it gives the SNP perfect cover to avoid answering any hard questions.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
Is there a market yet on how long it will be before the SNP, if they lose this proposed referendum, start calling for a third one?
My guess is around twenty minutes.
Scotland will not keep electing SNP governments with a front and centre mandate for a Sindy referendum and then keep voting No. People who believe this is a credible future are viewing the Scottish people as like chippy, recalcitrant teenagers. It's a jaundiced and illogical view.
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
They will always be able to find a pretext. Brexit isn't even a particularly good one, since there was no lasting move to Yes in the opinion polls after the vote. They will manufacture some spurious grievance with the government in London and demand another vote.
Brexit is a compelling justification. It's a million miles from spurious. Leaving the EU is a massive change and Scotland voted clearly against it. Furthermore, it was a part of the Yes argument in 2014 that remaining in the UK would safeguard Scotland's place in the EU and the Single Market. If this is not material change in circumstances, what on earth is?
The rest of your comments just sound exactly as I described. Illogical and jaundiced. In particular, please answer this key question. Why do you think the Scottish people would keep electing SNP governments to get Sindy referendums to keep voting No in? What is it about the Scots which makes you think they'd behave in such a ridiculous manner?
The country is split 50/50. The SNP do well in elections because the 50% Yes vote in united behind them while the No vote is divided three ways.
What we can safely say is that despite Brexit and Covid it is demonstrably not the case that the "settled will" of the Scottish people is supportive of independence. If there was another referendum anytime soon, and Yes won, it would almost certainly be by the skin of their teeth, leaving the country even more bitterly divided, especially once the economic realities started biting.
The divisions would change. Instead of being divided on the issue of whether to seek independence or not, the parties would eventually need to stand on a platform of what to do as an independent nation. How to fix issues in the economy, health, education etc
All that stuff that Hollyrood is meant to be dealing with now, but is avoiding scrutiny on, will come to the fore once the independence issue is killed off one way or another. Perhaps a second no vote will kill it off, a yes vote definitely will. Simply refusing to have another vote because you're too frit you might lose it gives the SNP perfect cover to avoid answering any hard questions.
The SNP would have a referendum every day until they win if the UK government agreed to it.
Tough, they are not getting another for a generation as long as we have a Tory government at Westminster
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The last line is missing, viz: "Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
The fact that Brexit was unplanned in any proper sense is down to 40 years of governments, and parliaments, of all shades hoping that by pretending it could not happen it would not. The UK people knew they were likely only to have one shot at this, as Remain winning would have been taken by the establishment as permanent and final; so Brexit won despite the many pitfalls in the way.
This is true but responsibility for this lies on successive parliaments but most of all on Mrs Thatcher, Major, Blair for presiding over changes with constitutional impact without our consent, and Cameron for a simple failure to prepare for only two outcomes, each of which was clearly possible.
Mrs May and the current PM are relatively innocents in this - even if in not much else.
The original accession was after several years of fruitless applications led by Conservative Governments, and blocked. by Gen de Gaulle. After his death a Conservative Government took us in and that was confirmed by a substantial majority in a referendum organised by the Labour Government in 1975. The result was greeted with rejoicing in, IIRC all newspapers except the Morning Star.. It is not, in my experience anyway, normal to go into a marriage planning for a divorce.
I voted to leave. I would have voted to stay in, and support remaining a member right up until the 1990s. The institution people were voting to remain in 1974 was out of all recognition to the institution we voted remain or leave in 2016. Our leaders knew quite well that while a referendum to leave the EC/EEC?EU itself would probably fail, a referendum on whether or not to deepen integration and open borders to free movement would absolutely fail and there would be no progress. Even the most pro EU nations struggle to get changes via referendum.
Why do Leavers say things like 'we would have voted to stay in the 1975 arrangements but not afterwards?" British politicians were among those who instituted the changes, politicians from both sides of our divide, notably Roy Jenkins and Margaret Thatcher. The volte face by the Conservative party must be among the biggest ever in British, or indeed any other politics.
If Scotland had voted to leave the UK it would be out of the EU too. Ironically, the UK then would not have held an EU referendum.
I'm curious if those citing the Scots voting to stay in the EU would be calling for England to leave the UK if the vote had gone the other way.
You're putting hard fact on the same level as convoluted counterfactual. Which you shouldn't. As to the thing you're curious about, who knows. Let's stick to the knitting.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The logic of a Commission is that Scotland will be given the choice on its conclusions. That means a second referendum, more economic paralysis, less FDI and more businesses moving elsewhere. Having a referendum is not a cost free choice. The Scottish tax base was damaged by 2014 and has not recovered fully since.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
There should be a Commission if parties pledging a Commission win an election.
If parties pledging alternative paths, like straight to a referendum, or no constitutional meddling win, then so be it.
If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result.
Salmond will then urge Sturgeon to declare UDI which she has said she will not do.
A commission I agree is an irrelevance, it will not stop the above.
The only way to ensure no indyref2 is to vote for a Unionist majority at Holyrood in May
You really do not know Scots politics
Nicola Sturgeon is an extremely capable politician and she will only hold a referendum through a Section 30 agreement with Westminster and in an article last week she is prepared to wait until 2023 and does not expect Independence before 2026
Salmond is a lost cause, widely disliked across Scotland, and may not even be elected to the Scottish Parliament
Your hope that there will be unionist majority is forlorn with Douglas Ross a disaster for the Scots conservatives
Nicola will obtain a majority for the SNP on her own, but even then the Greens will back her legal pursuit of Independence, with Salmond and his UDI followers marginalised and irrelevant
And when Nicola does not hold a referendum this year will you accept for the first time on PB that you were wrong as we all await that as a monumental moment in PB history !!!!!!!
The SNP have already made clear they will hold an independence referendum if they win a majority with or without UK government consent. They will do so if they get that majority, Boris will ignore it, Unionists will boycott it.
I would not be so certain on an SNP majority however with Unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote and Alba splitting the SNP list vote.
In 2016 the Scottish Conservatives got 22% on the constituency vote and 22.9% on the list vote under Davidson's leadership.
So Ross is actually doing better than Davidson on the constituency vote and only 1% worse on the list vote.
You said:
'If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result'
And I am saying will you admit you got it wrong when is does not happen making it a first in this forums history'
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The logic of a Commission is that Scotland will be given the choice on its conclusions. That means a second referendum, more economic paralysis, less FDI and more businesses moving elsewhere. Having a referendum is not a cost free choice. The Scottish tax base was damaged by 2014 and has not recovered fully since.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
There should be a Commission if parties pledging a Commission win an election.
If parties pledging alternative paths, like straight to a referendum, or no constitutional meddling win, then so be it.
If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result.
Salmond will then urge Sturgeon to declare UDI which she has said she will not do.
A commission I agree is an irrelevance, it will not stop the above.
The only way to ensure no indyref2 is to vote for a Unionist majority at Holyrood in May
You really do not know Scots politics
Nicola Sturgeon is an extremely capable politician and she will only hold a referendum through a Section 30 agreement with Westminster and in an article last week she is prepared to wait until 2023 and does not expect Independence before 2026
Salmond is a lost cause, widely disliked across Scotland, and may not even be elected to the Scottish Parliament
Your hope that there will be unionist majority is forlorn with Douglas Ross a disaster for the Scots conservatives
Nicola will obtain a majority for the SNP on her own, but even then the Greens will back her legal pursuit of Independence, with Salmond and his UDI followers marginalised and irrelevant
And when Nicola does not hold a referendum this year will you accept for the first time on PB that you were wrong as we all await that as a monumental moment in PB history !!!!!!!
The SNP have already made clear they will hold an independence referendum if they win a majority with or without UK government consent. They will do so if they get that majority, Boris will ignore it, Unionists will boycott it.
I would not be so certain on an SNP majority however with Unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote and Alba splitting the SNP list vote.
In 2016 the Scottish Conservatives got 22% on the constituency vote and 22.9% on the list vote under Davidson's leadership.
So Ross is actually doing better than Davidson on the constituency vote and only 1% worse on the list vote.
You said:
'If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result'
And I am saying will you admit you got it wrong when is does not happen making it a first in this forums history'
Sturgeon will hold a referendum if she gets a Holyrood majority whether the UK government agrees or not, the UK government will just ignore the result
Comments
My point was simply that DeStantis is not averse to statistical manipulation for his own ends. Do you dispute that?
A lot of people would miss it if it was replaced by 20 varieties of Netflix, though. The fact that left and right get worked up about it is not the licence fee (which is not for most people a huge part of their outgoings) but the sense that it's "our" broadcasting system and shouldn't be used to give Jeremy Clarkson/George Galloway/other random hate-figure air time. If Netflix gave included "an hour with George Galloway" among its free offerings, nobody would care.
I get the argument that it's mandatory if you have a TV and pay-per-view would be fairer (and doing it through taxes would be a lot simpler). But there are loads of government expenditure that we pay for through mandatory taxation/fees and we all grumble about some of the expenditure without really questioning the government doing it. There are far worse uses for our collective contribution than an advert-free common broadcaster that makes an effort to be more or less non-partisan. Virtually everyone in the developed world has something similar, apart from the US.
"Our experience of Brexit has demonstrated how difficult it is to remove a country from
even a comparatively brief relationship whilst maintaining good will. We want to ensure that the good relationships between Scotland and the rest of the UK are maintained.
..... etc ...."
Not really weather for sitting in any sort of garden, pub or otherwise, and not many are open either around here.
We may sell ice cream for dogs in January but sitting round a warm fire is what's needed in this sort of weather not catching hypothermia. The sky is a wonderful blue and my forsythia is a brilliant burst of yellow outside my window.
Now, w**k to do. Laters.
If you want a US Governor who deliberately distorts stats and is happy to see thousands die so he can look good, check out this guy: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/top-cuomo-aide-admits-coverup-of-nursing-home-deaths-sparking-bipartisan-calls-for-prosecution/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MJ_20210212&utm_term=Jolt-Smart
A "Brexit Commission" couldn't have pointed towards the final Withdrawal Agreement and EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement since most of that was negotiated and wasn't what either sides extremes wanted at the start, it was a meticulous compromise. If Brexiteers had come up with something like that it would have been the starting point the EU would have negotiated away from, not the final deal.
Parties can come up with answers they propose, but without any onus on compromises before negotiations are real the idea that the answers will be either real or binding is for the birds.
"Especially when an unplanned, 'it'll be alright on the night' Brexit is proving to be an unmitigated disaster."
Offering evidence of another charlatan to imply they are all at it is a great 'look squirrel' tactic.
Won't be able to drink though as driving.
They are moving the goal posts.
GEO Satellite internet haș long been a thing - and it's horrible.
My modest focus is on doing what I can to deny the SNP their majority. If that is achieved, and it is admittedly a big if, then the Commission would be redundant and pointless. To me, a Commission is simply an acknowledgement that we are once again on the path to self harm. It would be premature to commit to that until Scotland has voted.
This is true but responsibility for this lies on successive parliaments but most of all on Mrs Thatcher, Major, Blair for presiding over changes with constitutional impact without our consent, and Cameron for a simple failure to prepare for only two outcomes, each of which was clearly possible.
Mrs May and the current PM are relatively innocents in this - even if in not much else.
My guess is around twenty minutes.
You currently get £xbn in tax but spend £x+ybn every year - how are you planning to meet that shortful - is a question to which all the commission is doing is removing possible answers such as North Sea Oil.
What currency do you plan to use - again it needs an answer - if the answer is sterling that's has consequences that you can highlight, if the plan is to join the EU and use the Euro likewise.
In both cases you are forcing decisions to be made which you can then attack.
And the entire point is that Scotland cannot promise everyone their personal unicorn
If parties pledging alternative paths, like straight to a referendum, or no constitutional meddling win, then so be it.
Firstly regarding tax both parties dispute the tax and revenue figures by disputing how much is sent in which direction. Scot nationalists claim they're being taxed too much for Westminster based things and don't get money back so they would be better off independent. Scot unionists and many in England claim that English money is going to Scotland via the Barnett formula. Plus what happens to assets, liabilities, debts, pensions etc?
Brexit was much "cleaner" than Scottish independence will be because the UK economy and tax system is much less integrated with Europe than Scotland is with the UK. Still the first few years of Article 50 were dominated by negotiations over the 'divorce bill'. There was no straight answer, parts of it needed negotiating. At least with Brexit it was definitely accepted that the UK was a net contributor to the EU, even Remainers accepted that, but with Scottish Independence both sides claim the same thing.
Secondly with currency it again comes to negotiations. If the answer is sterling then there'll need to be negotiations between Scotland and Westminster. If the answer is the Euro, negotiations between Scotland and the EU.
People can come up with these questions already, without a Commission. That's politics. No Commission can find the answer, since the answer requires negotiations. A Commission is just an excuse to get a report to say what you want to say already, but dressed up with a pretty bow, or a can kicking exercise.
There is no negotiation required to answer the question "how are you planning to meet the shortfall" - and the fact you say there should be a negotiation means I can vote Yes for independence and the SNP can blame cruel London when it goes pearshaped.
Which is why no one sane is going to let the SNP do so..
I wouldn't go back now, either. South Korea is on my to visit list.
He is an ultra Trump loyalist and his refusal to impose lockdowns in Florida or even a mask order has gone down well with the Trumpite base in the GOP.
The latest GOP poll has De Santis on 17% just ahead of Pence as the moderate candidate on 16% with Cruz a distant third on 5% and Haley on just 4%.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1374812566875217920?s=20
However even if De Santis does win the nomination that does not mean he will win the general election, Florida voted for Trump after all even when he lost last year and is staunch Trump country now.
Interest expenditure - how much is Scottish?
Military expenditure - how much is Scottish?
Etc etc etc. All issues for negotiations or future policies.
The nationalists will just say that Scotland raises more than it spends, the unionists the opposite. No Commission can or will answer the question, though it can give the "right" answer to one side if packed with that sides members.
But even if I ignore interest - the military issue is simple. It goes what do you want? That will cost £xbn.
Are you sure it's enough?
Salmond will then urge Sturgeon to declare UDI which she has said she will not do.
A commission I agree is an irrelevance, it will not stop the above.
The only way to ensure no indyref2 is to vote for a Unionist majority at Holyrood in May
Even the best polls for the Nationalists do not give them that much at present, so on that basis Boris can still refuse to recognise any indyref2
Maybe that's their definition of 'rural'?
This issue is already well debated every single year when the GERS figures come out. Nationalists claim the GERS are nonsense, the Unionists that they're representative or even optimistic.
What is a Commission going to do that GERS and general politics can't achieve?
A Commission can work if one party can unilaterally act. Eg if Parliament can say "this is the law" and pass its proposals. But once you've got multiple competing parties and Parliaments looking after their own interests and unwilling to cooperate first it's another matter.
Macron last October: “Those who tell you there will be a vaccine in March or April are lying to you”
Really, what a dick......
All charlatans should be reported, Democrat or Republican. I'm happy to criticise both but equating Cuomo and DeSantis as the same shows how you view Democrat misdeeds as ones to be minimised. Cuomo's actions literally led to the deaths of thousands of people and all because he wanted to look good, and then he tried to cover it up. Even DeSantis' enemies haven't accused him of such.
Conservative voters also preferred Brown to Starmer.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1381184268861325315?s=20
f a referendum on EU membership were to be held tomorrow, with the choice of the UK re-joining the EU or staying out of the EU, how would you vote?
Re-join: 39%
Stay out: 46%
A referendum can be justified so soon after 2014 on account of Brexit. But if it happens and it's another No, that's it for a long time. A referendum in these exceptional circumstances, if they get it, would be a rifle with one bullet. You'd better not miss. I'm sure Sturgeon knows this.
Do you think I should overtly back him even?
The only way the SNP get an indyref2 and the UK government to recognise the result is for the Nationalists to win a majority in May at Holyrood and at the 2024 UK general election hold the balance of power in a hung parliament so Starmer has to agree to indyref2
https://twitter.com/NHM_London/status/1381532975855247360
Nicola Sturgeon is an extremely capable politician and she will only hold a referendum through a Section 30 agreement with Westminster and in an article last week she is prepared to wait until 2023 and does not expect Independence before 2026
Salmond is a lost cause, widely disliked across Scotland, and may not even be elected to the Scottish Parliament
Your hope that there will be unionist majority is forlorn with Douglas Ross a disaster for the Scots conservatives
Nicola will obtain a majority for the SNP on her own, but even then the Greens will back her legal pursuit of Independence, with Salmond and his UDI followers marginalised and irrelevant
And when Nicola does not hold a referendum this year will you accept for the first time on PB that you were wrong as we all await that as a monumental moment in PB history !!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/ed40carter/status/1381264927709618181?s=21
https://twitter.com/jakpost/status/1381541565974331393?s=20
As time goes on I expect if people are being honest then both figures will decline and don't know will rise as people stop thinking about EU membership as an issue to discuss. 39% for rejoining is probably higher than it will get in the future, but then again 46% for staying out might be higher than it gets in the future too.
Life is going on and there'll be little reason or incentive in either the UK or the EU in the future to reopen this debate. Quite frankly I doubt many in the EU would want us back now, if they were being honest.
I suspect years from now the UK (or at least England, not expecting the UK to survive due to Blair's devolution) will play the role of Canada to the EU as the USA. Neighbours, but no intentions to join up.
What we need is a combined dental and chiropody service, so they can work on both ends at the same time.
"This the bus the EU were happy to throw your granny under"
It is not, in my experience anyway, normal to go into a marriage planning for a divorce.
The rest of your comments just sound exactly as I described. Illogical and jaundiced. In particular, please answer this key question. Why do you think the Scottish people would keep electing SNP governments to get Sindy referendums to keep voting No in? What is it about the Scots which makes you think they'd behave in such a ridiculous manner?
Then will be the time for your tears.
Mr. kinabalu, not really.
If Scotland had voted to leave the UK it would be out of the EU too. Ironically, the UK then would not have held an EU referendum.
I'm curious if those citing the Scots voting to stay in the EU would be calling for England to leave the UK if the vote had gone the other way.
It was pledged by Cameron prior to the Scottish referendum?
You really think Cameron's backbenchers would have let him drop the referendum? When over a hundred had demanded it which is why he gave in (not UKIP or anything else). He couldn't afford to alienate that many MPs, no Prime Minister can.
Interesting.
What we can safely say is that despite Brexit and Covid it is demonstrably not the case that the "settled will" of the Scottish people is supportive of independence. If there was another referendum anytime soon, and Yes won, it would almost certainly be by the skin of their teeth, leaving the country even more bitterly divided, especially once the economic realities started biting.
Even the most pro EU nations struggle to get changes via referendum.
I would not be so certain on an SNP majority however with Unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote and Alba splitting the SNP list vote now too.
The latest Holyrood poll from Comres has the Scottish Conservatives on 23% on the constituency vote and 21% on the list vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Scottish_Parliament_election
In 2016 the Scottish Conservatives got 22% on the constituency vote and 22.9% on the list vote under Davidson's leadership.
So Ross is actually doing better than Davidson on the constituency vote and only 1% worse on the list vote.
https://buzzolf.com/hundreds-of-sheep-stand-in-mysterious-crop-circle-in-field/
Pretty sure the sheep are standing where the food is, but the US government may say different...
All that stuff that Hollyrood is meant to be dealing with now, but is avoiding scrutiny on, will come to the fore once the independence issue is killed off one way or another. Perhaps a second no vote will kill it off, a yes vote definitely will. Simply refusing to have another vote because you're too frit you might lose it gives the SNP perfect cover to avoid answering any hard questions.
Tough, they are not getting another for a generation as long as we have a Tory government at Westminster
The volte face by the Conservative party must be among the biggest ever in British, or indeed any other politics.
'If the Nationalists win a majority in May Sturgeon will hold a referendum on independence later in the year, Unionists will boycott and Boris will ignore it and refuse the implement the result'
And I am saying will you admit you got it wrong when is does not happen making it a first in this forums history'