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.
Not sure about that. What many posters on here don't seem to appreciate - ie, those who don't actually live here - is that there is a significant section of the Scottish population that is pretty passionate about its British identity and the Union. It's existential for them. And they have a very big economic stake in Scotland too. The consequences of Scotland being led along the garden path and suffering an economic melt-down as a result of Independence will not be pretty. it's well worth avoiding.
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.
My biggest question is when is that day of reckoning coming. Given that state of Greensill will it be before or after the election? As it's starting (to me) to look like it's going to be after the election rather than before it.
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.
I simply do not accept that even a yes vote kills off the issue
Scotland will be hugely divided with fractures across the borders, the north east and even Orkney and Shetland
It will be divisive and will make Brexit look like a walk in the park
And I am far from convinced Scotland will vote leave but it is possible
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 reason you're so often wrong on politics is you take polls or positions as locked in stone and don't account for how actions have consequences and that things will change.
If the SNP hold and lose a referendum then Sturgeon would pretty much have to resign, that would add turbulence to Scottish politics.
If the SNP kept holding and losing referenda then the Scottish voters would get mighty sick of it and kick out the SNP.
Part of the reason May lost her majority was not just that she was shit, but that the election was considered unnecessary and the "Brenda from Bristol" effect was real, so May got punished. If the SNP kept holding and losing unnecessary referenda they'd be punished too.
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 !!!!!!!
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
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.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
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.
I simply do not accept that even a yes vote kills off the issue
Scotland will be hugely divided with fractures across the borders, the north east and even Orkney and Shetland
It will be divisive and will make Brexit look like a walk in the park
And I am far from convinced Scotland will vote leave but it is possible
It will eventually kill off the issue.
Constitutional issues will dominate for about five years probably, like Brexit has done, but then what else is new quite frankly? Constitutional matters have dominated politics for the past decade now.
Once we're through to the other side though, it will be different. People will want to put it behind us and move on. Its why the next election will not be about Europe, we're done with that now and people are ready to face future issues.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
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.
Not sure about that. What many posters on here don't seem to appreciate - ie, those who don't actually live here - is that there is a significant section of the Scottish population that is pretty passionate about its British identity and the Union. It's existential for them. And they have a very big economic stake in Scotland too. The consequences of Scotland being led along the garden path and suffering an economic melt-down as a result of Independence will not be pretty. it's well worth avoiding.
I agree that is the missing nuance from those maintaining independence that do not live in Scotland and is actually evident in the 50/50 nature of the polling
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.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
Sadly David Cameron has probably linked Greensill in most households minds to the Conservatives, regardless of the actions of the Scottish Government. 😒
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.
I simply do not accept that even a yes vote kills off the issue
Scotland will be hugely divided with fractures across the borders, the north east and even Orkney and Shetland
It will be divisive and will make Brexit look like a walk in the park
And I am far from convinced Scotland will vote leave but it is possible
It will eventually kill off the issue.
Constitutional issues will dominate for about five years probably, like Brexit has done, but then what else is new quite frankly? Constitutional matters have dominated politics for the past decade now.
Once we're through to the other side though, it will be different. People will want to put it behind us and move on. Its why the next election will not be about Europe, we're done with that now and people are ready to face future issues.
The next election may well be partly about closer alignment to the single market and customs union regulations with Starmer or the current terms on Brexit with Boris, especially if the economy slows with the current UK-EU trade terms.
A Yes vote would of course rip this island apart for a decade or more, on the current UK-EU trade terms it would mean border posts at Berwick once Scotland rejoined the EU plus the Tories would undoubtedly win a landslide in England on a platform on taking the hardest possible line with the SNP in the Scexit negotiations
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.
Does anyone really complain about covering the events you mention? Apart from the junketing by senior management.
The only real complaints about covering an event I can recall, is the Boat Race.
Well I think their coverage can be excellent but I see the vast numbers of people sent to cover events as shocking.
And if people want such levels of coverage then they would they be that unhappy for programs to have sponsors, or some advertising - people pay vast sums for football coverage on sky where kits are sponsored, grounds are both name sponsored and are covered in advertising, and TV coverage is sponsored and has advertising.
New Year is my main bugbear. Why on earth do they have an OB from central London including a concert when 80% of the country can't and won't be there and when it doesn't matter what's on the TV except a countdown, and some coverage of the fireworks. You could show anything up until 11.55 and it would make next to no difference.
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
I'm not opining whether they will or won't succeed in getting a Sindy vote, or when it will be, or who will win it. I haven't got a good feel for any of that yet. I'm just making 2 specific points -
The case for a vote is strong because of Brexit, assuming it's democratically franked by the Holyrood elections in May.
The notion that the Scots will keep demanding Sindy votes and voting No is a nonsense founded on an illogical and jaundiced view of the Scottish people.
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 reason you're so often wrong on politics is you take polls or positions as locked in stone and don't account for how actions have consequences and that things will change.
If the SNP hold and lose a referendum then Sturgeon would pretty much have to resign, that would add turbulence to Scottish politics.
If the SNP kept holding and losing referenda then the Scottish voters would get mighty sick of it and kick out the SNP.
Part of the reason May lost her majority was not just that she was shit, but that the election was considered unnecessary and the "Brenda from Bristol" effect was real, so May got punished. If the SNP kept holding and losing unnecessary referenda they'd be punished too.
May was forced out as she failed to deliver Brexit.
Sturgeon would be forced out if she failed to deliver a Nationalist majority in May or she failed to deliver an independence referendum having won that majority with or without UK government consent
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 reason you're so often wrong on politics is you take polls or positions as locked in stone and don't account for how actions have consequences and that things will change.
If the SNP hold and lose a referendum then Sturgeon would pretty much have to resign, that would add turbulence to Scottish politics.
If the SNP kept holding and losing referenda then the Scottish voters would get mighty sick of it and kick out the SNP.
Part of the reason May lost her majority was not just that she was shit, but that the election was considered unnecessary and the "Brenda from Bristol" effect was real, so May got punished. If the SNP kept holding and losing unnecessary referenda they'd be punished too.
I think the likelihood is that Yes would lose another referendum. But I just don't see Boris taking the risk. Why would he? He has a secure majority and Labour won't push him anyway. Blackford fulminating in the Commons just makes him laugh.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
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.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
Sadly David Cameron has probably linked Greensill in most households minds to the Conservatives, regardless of the actions of the Scottish Government. 😒
It's pretty shocking. I am not defending him at all. But there is an irony in that had he succeeded in getting support for Greensill it just might have got the Scottish government out of this particular hole.
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 reason you're so often wrong on politics is you take polls or positions as locked in stone and don't account for how actions have consequences and that things will change.
If the SNP hold and lose a referendum then Sturgeon would pretty much have to resign, that would add turbulence to Scottish politics.
If the SNP kept holding and losing referenda then the Scottish voters would get mighty sick of it and kick out the SNP.
Part of the reason May lost her majority was not just that she was shit, but that the election was considered unnecessary and the "Brenda from Bristol" effect was real, so May got punished. If the SNP kept holding and losing unnecessary referenda they'd be punished too.
May was forced out as she failed to deliver Brexit.
Sturgeon would be forced out if she failed to deliver a Nationalist majority in May or she failed to deliver an independence referendum having won that majority with or without UK government consent
This is what 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'
Why not just say this is unlikely now you have thought again
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
I suspect a lot will depend on how Alba do. If they hold the balance of power or result in the independence vote having a significant / super majority its going to be virtually impossible to back down.
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.
The biggest and most pragmatic changes were pioneered by British conservatives. The single market in itself was a good idea. The naivety i guess is to support such a deep economic alignment and not expect it to move into other spheres.
It's not a volte face. You can support many aspects of our membership, tolerate others, and actively dislike other aspects. A point is reached where the parts you support are not worth the other stuff.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
I think its extremely unlikely that the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, will rule that the Scottish Parliament has the right to hold a referendum on this issue without s30 approval. The words of the Act are tolerably clear and the precedent of what all parties accepted in 2014 is there for all to see.
This is not a legal problem, it is a political one. If the majority of Scots vote for parties committed to a second referendum then, as I have said before, it is wrong in both principle and strategy for Westminster to deny that wish. Scots should of course be careful what they wish for but that is their 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.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
I think its extremely unlikely that the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, will rule that the Scottish Parliament has the right to hold a referendum on this issue without s30 approval. The words of the Act are tolerably clear and the precedent of what all parties accepted in 2014 is there for all to see.
This is not a legal problem, it is a political one. If the majority of Scots vote for parties committed to a second referendum then, as I have said before, it is wrong in both principle and strategy for Westminster to deny that wish. Scots should of course be careful what they wish for but that is their choice.
That's entirely fair.
If a majority of Scots vote for parties committed to a second referendum and that referendum is refused, then that would be a gift that keeps on giving to nationalists.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
The Scottish Government may take it court themselves for a declaration.
If they lose, they're not really in any worse position and can claim further grievance. If they win, they gain more momentum and it gives any subsequent referendum more legitimacy, as you say.
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.
Yes, I'm sure separation would be messy and traumatic, especially if the Yes were by a whisker. But my point is more about the No. If it's a No, I think that's it for a long time for the reasons I set out.
This idea the Scots will keep electing the SNP on a Sindy vote promise and then keep saying "thanks but no thanks" in that vote - rinse repeat every election cycle - is scotaphobic nonsense. The SNP would have to ice it or they'd be out of power.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
No UK referendum, other than the AV referendum, had 'legal force' so I'm not sure why you're treating that as some important 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."
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.
The biggest and most pragmatic changes were pioneered by British conservatives. The single market in itself was a good idea. The naivety i guess is to support such a deep economic alignment and not expect it to move into other spheres.
It's not a volte face. You can support many aspects of our membership, tolerate others, and actively dislike other aspects. A point is reached where the parts you support are not worth the other stuff.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?
The same. Only the basic facts haven't changed. We were better off IN, particularly when compared to the dogs breakfast we have now. If we'd tried to negate a Leaving settlement that would have been somewhat better, but we've just torn up everything, with results which seem to increasingly bad. So far, anyway.
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.
The biggest and most pragmatic changes were pioneered by British conservatives. The single market in itself was a good idea. The naivety i guess is to support such a deep economic alignment and not expect it to move into other spheres.
It's not a volte face. You can support many aspects of our membership, tolerate others, and actively dislike other aspects. A point is reached where the parts you support are not worth the other stuff.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?
The same. Only the basic facts haven't changed. We were better off IN, particularly when compared to the dogs breakfast we have now. If we'd tried to negate a Leaving settlement that would have been somewhat better, but we've just torn up everything, with results which seem to increasingly bad. So far, anyway.
Oh cut the nonsense.
"increasingly bad" - what absolute rot, you can't possibly believe that.
The fears and projections were of absolute catastrophe if we left, or if we left "hard" but instead we've got a successful vaccine scheme to contrast ourselves with, life has gone on as "normal" and people are nitpicking around the edges about fishing and other inconsequential elements. Plus ca change.
What is "increasingly bad" now that you didn't think would be bad last year?
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Spain has the (dis?)advantage of a written constiution that clearly sets out the arrangements...the UK's approach of whatever feels right on the day is perhaps the biggest 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 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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
No UK referendum, other than the AV referendum, had 'legal force' so I'm not sure why you're treating that as some important issue.
That is correct.
No referendum result in the UK has any legal force unless the UK government is willing to allow the referendum, to implement the result and has a majority in the House of Commons to do so. Otherwise it is merely a glorified opinion poll.
Hence even the 2016 EU referendum result was not respected and not enforceable through the Commons after May lost her majority in 2017 until after Boris won a Tory majority in December 2019 and there will not be any respect given for any Scottish independence referendum certainly while we have a UK Tory government and a Tory majority in the Commons
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
Spain has the (dis?)advantage of a written constiution that clearly sets out the arrangements...the UK's approach of whatever feels right on the day is perhaps the biggest issue.
But would that be the case if Independence won 90%+ of the vote on anything less than 55% turnout?
In which case it's easy to both allow the SNP to hold their referendum, it's just essential to ensure only those for independence turn out.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
No UK referendum, other than the AV referendum, had 'legal force' so I'm not sure why you're treating that as some important issue.
That is correct.
No UK referendum result has any legal force unless the UK government is willing to allow the referendum, to implement the result and has a majority in the House of Commons to do so. Otherwise it is merely a glorified opinion poll.
Hence even the 2016 EU referendum result was not respected and not enforceable through the Commons after May lost her majority in 2017 and there will not be any respect given for any Scottish independence referendum certainly while we have a UK Tory government and a Tory majority in the Commons
But Brits believe in fair play in a way that not every other country does.
The Spanish may want to block independence at all costs, but if the Scots vote yes then English MPs would go swiftly from wanting to block Scottish Independence, to wanting to stand up for England on independence issues.
Tories would want to portray themselves as the best party to stand up to the SNP on the divorce, rather than preventing the 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 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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
I suspect a lot will depend on how Alba do. If they hold the balance of power or result in the independence vote having a significant / super majority its going to be virtually impossible to back down.
Tricky one - Alba - although probably moot going by their crap polling. My sense is that the best result for the Sindy cause is a clear SNP majority, uncluttered by anything else.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
Boris also made it clear there would be no border in the Irish Sea and look how that turned out.
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.
The biggest and most pragmatic changes were pioneered by British conservatives. The single market in itself was a good idea. The naivety i guess is to support such a deep economic alignment and not expect it to move into other spheres.
It's not a volte face. You can support many aspects of our membership, tolerate others, and actively dislike other aspects. A point is reached where the parts you support are not worth the other stuff.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?
The same. Only the basic facts haven't changed. We were better off IN, particularly when compared to the dogs breakfast we have now. If we'd tried to negate a Leaving settlement that would have been somewhat better, but we've just torn up everything, with results which seem to increasingly bad. So far, anyway.
Oh cut the nonsense.
"increasingly bad" - what absolute rot, you can't possibly believe that.
The fears and projections were of absolute catastrophe if we left, or if we left "hard" but instead we've got a successful vaccine scheme to contrast ourselves with, life has gone on as "normal" and people are nitpicking around the edges about fishing and other inconsequential elements. Plus ca change.
What is "increasingly bad" now that you didn't think would be bad last year?
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
Boris also made it clear there would be no border in the Irish Sea and look how that turned out.
Only to get an EU trade deal and he is already trying to remove it.
He also has nothing to lose from banning a recognised indyref2, ie keeping the UK together (if he lost Scotland he would have to resign) and the SNP threat to Labour and nothing to gain
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Rubbish, on current polls Scotland is 50% independence 50% Unionist so there is a 50% chance of Unionists losing a recognised indyref2.
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Glorious weather in the north-west... snow on the high ground... southern lakes hills very clear in the distance... currently watching three buzzards high in the sky above the moor, they’re being attacked in turn by two rooks... resembles a WW1 dogfight... appropriately, two RAF trainers just flew past at low level... off out soon for a walk part way up Ingleborough and pint on the way back...
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.
Personally, it's not the national nature or the funding (per se) that annoys me - I think if it didn't exist in its current form it would have been swallowed up by big media corporations long ago. For me it's the lack of commercial drive. What other media company has a vast injection of dependable cash every year, but seems unable to turn this into profit-making content (I know advertising is forbidden but it can sell its programmes abroad, it has spin off magazines, books, dvds etc.). Channel 4 does this, not perfectly, but acceptably. I'm happy paying for the Beeb, but longer term, shouldn't the Beeb be paying us? It should eventually be a sovereign wealth fund for the UK.
I'm beating you to it - have a booking at 2pm. Also bookings for Sat and Sun. And just back from gym. I'm eagerly gobbling up those liberty breadcrumbs.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Rubbish, on current polls Scotland is 50% independence 50% Unionist so there is a 50% chance of Unionists losing a recognised indyref2.
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Again refusing to think more than one step ahead. You must be a terrible chess player.
Telling the Scots they're not allowed to decide their own future would build support for independence, not break it.
If the Scots don't want to be part of the UK anymore that's their choice. Why should they be held in the union against their will?
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Rubbish, on current polls Scotland is 50% independence 50% Unionist so there is a 50% chance of Unionists losing a recognised indyref2.
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Um Catalonia is part of Spain... That typo was too good not to grab for posterity
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.
Well sadly I wasn't consulted but the Scottish government isn't very good at taking advice that they don't like from independent counsel anyway.
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
Sadly David Cameron has probably linked Greensill in most households minds to the Conservatives, regardless of the actions of the Scottish Government. 😒
It's pretty shocking. I am not defending him at all. But there is an irony in that had he succeeded in getting support for Greensill it just might have got the Scottish government out of this particular hole.
It really could bring the whole thing crashing down, in the most crunchy, twisted metal way. The SNP might even do the double and bankrupt their party as well as the country.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Rubbish, on current polls Scotland is 50% independence 50% Unionist so there is a 50% chance of Unionists losing a recognised indyref2.
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Again refusing to think more than one step ahead. You must be a terrible chess player.
Telling the Scots they're not allowed to decide their own future would build support for independence, not break it.
If the Scots don't want to be part of the UK anymore that's their choice. Why should they be held in the union against their will?
Utter rubbish.
Only a quarter of Scots want another independence referendum in the next year.
It is time to stand up to the Nationalists and this UK Tory government will do so. We must follow our conservative cousins in the PP in Spain in regards to Catalan Nationalists and show no concessions whatsover to Scottish Nationalists.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
Holyrood.
A single "l".
I did see there was a film crew out on the Dalmeny estate on Easter Monday, but I don't think the film activity in the area yet qualifies for a Hollywood name contrivance.
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
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Rubbish, on current polls Scotland is 50% independence 50% Unionist so there is a 50% chance of Unionists losing a recognised indyref2.
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Again refusing to think more than one step ahead. You must be a terrible chess player.
Telling the Scots they're not allowed to decide their own future would build support for independence, not break it.
If the Scots don't want to be part of the UK anymore that's their choice. Why should they be held in the union against their will?
Utter rubbish.
Only a quarter of Scots want another independence referendum in the next year.
It is time to stand up to the Nationalists and this UK Tory government will do so. We must follow our conservative cousins in the PP in Spain in regards to Catalan Nationalists and show no concessions whatsover to Scottish Nationalists.
Your attitude to the Scots and and Scotland is arrogant Little Englander provocation that will hasten the Scots leaving
However, I expect cooler heads and minds will address the issue over the next months and years, just as the Queen decided to ignore your musings and ask us all to watch Philip's funeral on our televisions
I see another black man has been shot dead by US police during a traffic stop. Christ.
Traffic policing seems very different in the USA compared to the UK. On the one hand if you're speeding you seem more likely to get off in the USA with a warning compared to the zero tolerance of cameras here. Otoh you might be shot. Why can they just not invest in Gatsos ?
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
Boris also made it clear there would be no border in the Irish Sea and look how that turned out.
I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Yes, all referenda are advisory, they do not have a legal status, but if the Government of the day has said that they'll implement the result, and participated in the referendum on that basis, it is difficult politically not to do so (though obviously not impossible).
If the Government of the day has said clearly from the outset that whilst it is very interested in the result of the great Scottish opinion poll, as a reserved matter, no constitutional changes will follow the outcome, then it isn't difficult at all not to implement the result. It will however be very useful to the UK Government, because it will provide invaluable electoral data for when there is a legitimate second referendum, which will no doubt happen in the current decade. Quite how the Scottish Government sells the great indy jamboree it when there's shit all money, is a matter for them.
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
But you surely do not believe a word Johnson says, do you, HY? The man is an unprincipled liar.
Glorious weather in the north-west... snow on the high ground... southern lakes hills very clear in the distance... currently watching three buzzards high in the sky above the moor, they’re being attacked in turn by two rooks... resembles a WW1 dogfight... appropriately, two RAF trainers just flew past at low level... off out soon for a walk part way up Ingleborough and pint on the way back...
Weather is awful for me. I have a vigorous early flowering rhododendron that likes to come in April. Not this year. All the beatiful red blooms eviscerated by heavy frost as they started to show. I have also lost a very nice ornamental sage to the weather I think, and everything else is weeks behind usual timing.
TS Elliott was right. April is the cruellest month. By a distance.
Glorious weather in the north-west... snow on the high ground... southern lakes hills very clear in the distance... currently watching three buzzards high in the sky above the moor, they’re being attacked in turn by two rooks... resembles a WW1 dogfight... appropriately, two RAF trainers just flew past at low level... off out soon for a walk part way up Ingleborough and pint on the way back...
Weather is awful for me. I have a vigorous early flowering rhododendron that likes to come in April. Not this year. All the beatiful red blooms eviscerated by heavy frost as they started to show. I have also lost a very nice ornamental sage to the weather I think, and everything else is weeks behind usual timing.
TS Elliott was right. April is the cruellest month. By a distance.
Have been sitting on our patio this morning in bright sun and while cool the windbreak made it really pleasant
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Rubbish, on current polls Scotland is 50% independence 50% Unionist so there is a 50% chance of Unionists losing a recognised indyref2.
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Again refusing to think more than one step ahead. You must be a terrible chess player.
Telling the Scots they're not allowed to decide their own future would build support for independence, not break it.
If the Scots don't want to be part of the UK anymore that's their choice. Why should they be held in the union against their will?
Utter rubbish.
Only a quarter of Scots want another independence referendum in the next year.
It is time to stand up to the Nationalists and this UK Tory government will do so. We must follow our conservative cousins in the PP in Spain in regards to Catalan Nationalists and show no concessions whatsover to Scottish Nationalists.
Your attitude to the Scots and and Scotland is arrogant Little Englander provocation that will hasten the Scots leaving
However, I expect cooler heads and minds will address the issue over the next months and years, just as the Queen decided to ignore your musings and ask us all to watch Philip's funeral on our televisions
You would give in to the SNP and allow a legal indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since 2014, this UK Tory government has made clear it will not allow nor recognise a legal indyref2 for a generation whatever happens at Holyrood in May, so tough.
If the Queen wishes to allow the public to watch on television the private family funeral with only 30 guests on Saturday that is her affair, personally I would have had a televised State Memorial later in the year but that is up to them
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
Holyrood.
A single "l".
I did see there was a film crew out on the Dalmeny estate on Easter Monday, but I don't think the film activity in the area yet qualifies for a Hollywood name contrivance.
Yes, what do the Scottish parliament, our political equivalent of the Kennedy brothers, and our best known celebrity DJ cum child sexual abuser have in common?
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
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
Biden's approval rating is still over 50% however but midterm elections are lower turnout protest votes on the whole which will help the GOP
I did see there was a film crew out on the Dalmeny estate on Easter Monday, but I don't think the film activity in the area yet qualifies for a Hollywood name contrivance.
But there is a Holywood in Belfast, and films are made there. My daughter is doing props for one.
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
Boris also made it clear there would be no border in the Irish Sea and look how that turned out.
I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Yes, all referenda are advisory, they do not have a legal status, but if the Government of the day has said that they'll implement the result, and participated in the referendum on that basis, it is difficult politically not to do so (though obviously not impossible).
If the Government of the day has said clearly from the outset that whilst it is very interested in the result of the great Scottish opinion poll, as a reserved matter, no constitutional changes will follow the outcome, then it isn't difficult at all not to implement the result. It will however be very useful to the UK Government, because it will provide invaluable electoral data for when there is a legitimate second referendum, which will no doubt happen in the current decade. Quite how the Scottish Government sells the great indy jamboree it when there's shit all money, is a matter for them.
What i'm arguing about?
@HYUFD is always banging on about how Westminster won't allow a "legal" referendum, etc.
I merely pointed out that if (although I note @DavidL thinks this is unlikely and he's much know knowledgeable on this than me) the courts hold that the Scottish Parliament does have the power to hold a referendum without Westminster's consent, the fact it wouldn't be "binding" is not really relevant because most UK referenda are non-binding.
And none of us really know what the consequences would be of an Independence victory in a non-binding referendum. It would certainly put >>some<< more pressure on 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
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
But you surely do not believe a word Johnson says, do you, HY? The man is an unprincipled liar.
If Boris lost Scotland he would be forced to resign as PM and forever would be remembered in the history books as the 21st century Lord North who broke up the Union as Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century, not as the architect of Brexit which is what he wants to be remembered for.
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
But you surely do not believe a word Johnson says, do you, HY? The man is an unprincipled liar.
If Boris lost Scotland he would be forced to resign as PM and forever would be remembered in the history books as the 21st century Lord North who broke up the Union as Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century, not as the architect of Brexit which is what he wants to be remembered for.
Boris knows that
Which is silly because there's a possible eventually that Scotland eventually becomes independent and the history books may write that Brexit was a leading cause, led by Boris Johnson.
So he could become the "21st century Lord North" in any case.
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.
I agree with all of that.
Also, if Brexit is such a compelling justification to renege on their "Once in a Generation" pledge, why did the polls move slightly towards No in the year after the EU referendum? Surely you'd have expected a significant move towards Yes if the Scots care so much about it? Leaving the EU was of course a big change in our national life, but it was a change for which almost 40% of Scots voted, and was clearly possible when the referendum was held.
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Please, please, please stop comparing Scotland to Catalonia.
If the Nationalists win a Holyrood majority in May we will be in a Catalonia style situation in due course, just a question of when and if Sturgeon chickens out of the UDI the Catalan nationalist government declared as seems likely
If you were PM then Scottish independence would be inevitable.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Rubbish, on current polls Scotland is 50% independence 50% Unionist so there is a 50% chance of Unionists losing a recognised indyref2.
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Again refusing to think more than one step ahead. You must be a terrible chess player.
Telling the Scots they're not allowed to decide their own future would build support for independence, not break it.
If the Scots don't want to be part of the UK anymore that's their choice. Why should they be held in the union against their will?
Utter rubbish.
Only a quarter of Scots want another independence referendum in the next year.
It is time to stand up to the Nationalists and this UK Tory government will do so. We must follow our conservative cousins in the PP in Spain in regards to Catalan Nationalists and show no concessions whatsover to Scottish Nationalists.
Your attitude to the Scots and and Scotland is arrogant Little Englander provocation that will hasten the Scots leaving
However, I expect cooler heads and minds will address the issue over the next months and years, just as the Queen decided to ignore your musings and ask us all to watch Philip's funeral on our televisions
You would give in to the SNP and allow a legal indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since 2014, this UK Tory government has made clear it will not allow nor recognise a legal indyref2 for a generation whatever happens at Holyrood in May, so tough.
If the Queen wishes to allow the public to watch on television the private family funeral with only 30 guests on Saturday that is her affair, personally I would have had a televised State Memorial later in the year but that is up to them
I prefer not to go through another indyref2 but if the Scots win a majority for it then it needs cool heads in government and opposition to react responsibly, not your idiotic Little Englander send in the tanks diatribe
And it is so good you have decided the Queens funeral arrangements are for her to decide, ignoring your musings
You do not seem to be able to take on board that your Scotland comments are ill judged, provocative, and not the way to address a genuine 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 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.
I agree with all of that.
Also, if Brexit is such a compelling justification to renege on their "Once in a Generation" pledge, why did the polls move slightly towards No in the year after the EU referendum? Surely you'd have expected a significant move towards Yes if the Scots care so much about it?
Of course there was no "once in a generation" "pledge".
In any case we'll see on the 6th May what the Scottish people really think.
I did see there was a film crew out on the Dalmeny estate on Easter Monday, but I don't think the film activity in the area yet qualifies for a Hollywood name contrivance.
But there is a Holywood in Belfast, and films are made there. My daughter is doing props for one.
Rory McIlroy hails from there. Much good it's doing him, way he's playing at the moment.
Glorious weather in the north-west... snow on the high ground... southern lakes hills very clear in the distance... currently watching three buzzards high in the sky above the moor, they’re being attacked in turn by two rooks... resembles a WW1 dogfight... appropriately, two RAF trainers just flew past at low level... off out soon for a walk part way up Ingleborough and pint on the way back...
Weather is awful for me. I have a vigorous early flowering rhododendron that likes to come in April. Not this year. All the beatiful red blooms eviscerated by heavy frost as they started to show. I have also lost a very nice ornamental sage to the weather I think, and everything else is weeks behind usual timing.
TS Elliott was right. April is the cruellest month. By a distance.
My sympathies... anything we try to grow is eaten either by hares, rabbits or sheep that jump the drystone wall surrounding our garden...
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
But you surely do not believe a word Johnson says, do you, HY? The man is an unprincipled liar.
If Boris lost Scotland he would be forced to resign as PM and forever would be remembered in the history books as the 21st century Lord North who broke up the Union as Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century, not as the architect of Brexit which is what he wants to be remembered for.
Boris knows that
Must be a great comfort to Scottish Unionists that BJ's main priority is to be not holding the Indy grenade when it goes off.
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."
By far the best way of dealing with the issue
I disagree. I think it would be stirring up a huge mess. The Commission will never have buy in from the Indy side, no matter how impartial it is designed to be. We see this in the GERS figures - they were the SNP Bible when they said broadly what it wanted, now they're not saying what they want anymore, they're UK propaganda.
If there is a Commission, it should be about addressing dissatisfaction and perceived imbalances within the Union, including all separatist movements, and its aim should be the creation of a new Union that is fit for the 21st century, rather than to try to eke out a bit more grudging acceptance of the status quo for another 10 years or so before these issues return.
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.
That’s why it is a royal commission - a review of the options not a conclusion
I did see there was a film crew out on the Dalmeny estate on Easter Monday, but I don't think the film activity in the area yet qualifies for a Hollywood name contrivance.
But there is a Holywood in Belfast, and films are made there. My daughter is doing props for one.
Rory McIlroy hails from there. Much good it's doing him, way he's playing at the moment.
He could take up acting, and cut down on the travel.
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
While I'll be accused of bias, I think they are actually looking good and the chances of taking Congress in 2022 very good. Biden is carrying out the dream scenario for the GOP of being both very progressive and also incompetent. The Border Crisis is spiralling out of control, which won't be great for the Democrats in states like Arizona , and he faces deadlock in his agenda. Take a look at what Joe Manchin said in the WP about the Filibuster.
But you're hopelessly biased, Ed.
I don't allow it to interfere with my betting Kinablu. I forecast a narrow Trump win for 2020, basically the same as he got in 2016 with the possibility of picking up 1-2 states. It was out but not hugely out and certainly closer than the landslide Biden win many on here (but not you) were predicting for 2020. Mike focused on Biden's approval numbers but there are huge variations in the range between pollsters and other data such as congressional voting preference is certainly not positive for the Democrats at this stage. Glad to see you took my advice a few weeks back on DeSantis though
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
Boris also made it clear there would be no border in the Irish Sea and look how that turned out.
Only to get an EU trade deal and he is already trying to remove it.
He also has nothing to lose from banning a recognised indyref2, ie keeping the UK together (if he lost Scotland he would have to resign) and the SNP threat to Labour and nothing to gain
So Bozo lied to get an EU trade deal and that seems just fine with you . He has caused immense damage to the Union and is too spineless to face the music so he will just be a total hypocrite and after droning on about the will of the people for the EU ref he will then refuse to agree a Scottish one even if the SNP have a majority .
Con 41 (-1) Lab 34 (nc) LD 6 (-1) Grn 6 (nc) SNP 5 (nc) Ref 3 (nc)
Yougov continues to have Labour lower than other pollsters - and this poll also shows the Tories a fair bit off what two weekend polls were indicating. Greens again seem too high. Whilst Labour might derive some comfort from the fact that Yougov recorded the 13% Tory lead a month or so ago, that now does appear to have been an outlier.
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
He is completely clueless.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
But you surely do not believe a word Johnson says, do you, HY? The man is an unprincipled liar.
If Boris lost Scotland he would be forced to resign as PM and forever would be remembered in the history books as the 21st century Lord North who broke up the Union as Lord North lost the American colonies in the 18th century, not as the architect of Brexit which is what he wants to be remembered for.
Boris knows that
Which is silly because there's a possible eventually that Scotland eventually becomes independent and the history books may write that Brexit was a leading cause, led by Boris Johnson.
So he could become the "21st century Lord North" in any case.
P.S. nobody normal knows who "Lord North" is.
Any PM who lost Scotland on their watch would be remembered in history mainly for that.
It is Chamberlain who is remembered as the man who was the architect of the failed appeasement process, not Baldwin although Baldwin arguably did much of the work of appeasement beforehand.
Boris knows if he lost Scotland he would be humiliated and forced to resign as PM immediately, hence he will not allow any legal or recognised indyref2 under any circumstances and with a Tory majority of 80 he has the power to do so
Seeing all the people queuing up to get I to pubs today is quite reassuring. The public hasn't gone mad as the polls suggest and there will be no issue with filling out concert halls, stadiums or other large events. We don't need vaccine passports, we have enough strength of character in this country to do get on with life and enjoy it without needing to ask the state for permission.
Comments
All very interesting but the closing credits mentioned the EU Development fund.... really?
Scotland will be hugely divided with fractures across the borders, the north east and even Orkney and Shetland
It will be divisive and will make Brexit look like a walk in the park
And I am far from convinced Scotland will vote leave but it is possible
If the SNP hold and lose a referendum then Sturgeon would pretty much have to resign, that would add turbulence to Scottish politics.
If the SNP kept holding and losing referenda then the Scottish voters would get mighty sick of it and kick out the SNP.
Part of the reason May lost her majority was not just that she was shit, but that the election was considered unnecessary and the "Brenda from Bristol" effect was real, so May got punished. If the SNP kept holding and losing unnecessary referenda they'd be punished too.
Re-join: 54%
Stay out: 34%
The details are not yet in the public domain. What we know is that the Scottish government guaranteed £500m for an aluminum smelting business which employed about 100 people at that time. There was a hope that this would lead to an additional factory employing hundreds more but there were were no conditions on the guarantee. The money was used to keep Gupta's enterprise going and wasn't spent in Scotland, none of it.
Now it is alleged that some of the invoices that Greensill were relying upon as security for their debts are to businesses who are not customers of Liberty at all. Perhaps the best solution is to ask every household in Scotland to write their cheque for £500 for every member of their household and bring home the cost of incompetent government? Maybe before May 6th?
Constitutional issues will dominate for about five years probably, like Brexit has done, but then what else is new quite frankly? Constitutional matters have dominated politics for the past decade now.
Once we're through to the other side though, it will be different. People will want to put it behind us and move on. Its why the next election will not be about Europe, we're done with that now and people are ready to face future issues.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
A Yes vote would of course rip this island apart for a decade or more, on the current UK-EU trade terms it would mean border posts at Berwick once Scotland rejoined the EU plus the Tories would undoubtedly win a landslide in England on a platform on taking the hardest possible line with the SNP in the Scexit negotiations
And if people want such levels of coverage then they would they be that unhappy for programs to have sponsors, or some advertising - people pay vast sums for football coverage on sky where kits are sponsored, grounds are both name sponsored and are covered in advertising, and TV coverage is sponsored and has advertising.
New Year is my main bugbear. Why on earth do they have an OB from central London including a concert when 80% of the country can't and won't be there and when it doesn't matter what's on the TV except a countdown, and some coverage of the fireworks. You could show anything up until 11.55 and it would make next to no difference.
The case for a vote is strong because of Brexit, assuming it's democratically franked by the Holyrood elections in May.
The notion that the Scots will keep demanding Sindy votes and voting No is a nonsense founded on an illogical and jaundiced view of the Scottish people.
Sturgeon would be forced out if she failed to deliver a Nationalist majority in May or she failed to deliver an independence referendum having won that majority with or without UK government consent
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
Am I missing out?
'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'
Why not just say this is unlikely now you have thought again
You could save face by doing that
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
It's not a volte face. You can support many aspects of our membership, tolerate others, and actively dislike other aspects. A point is reached where the parts you support are not worth the other stuff.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?
This is not a legal problem, it is a political one. If the majority of Scots vote for parties committed to a second referendum then, as I have said before, it is wrong in both principle and strategy for Westminster to deny that wish. Scots should of course be careful what they wish for but that is their choice.
If a majority of Scots vote for parties committed to a second referendum and that referendum is refused, then that would be a gift that keeps on giving to nationalists.
If they lose, they're not really in any worse position and can claim further grievance. If they win, they gain more momentum and it gives any subsequent referendum more legitimacy, as you say.
Interesting times.
This idea the Scots will keep electing the SNP on a Sindy vote promise and then keep saying "thanks but no thanks" in that vote - rinse repeat every election cycle - is scotaphobic nonsense. The SNP would have to ice it or they'd be out of power.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Therefore the fact that any potential IndyRef2 would have no effect if 'Yes/Leave' won is not particularly insightful.
If we'd tried to negate a Leaving settlement that would have been somewhat better, but we've just torn up everything, with results which seem to increasingly bad. So far, anyway.
"increasingly bad" - what absolute rot, you can't possibly believe that.
The fears and projections were of absolute catastrophe if we left, or if we left "hard" but instead we've got a successful vaccine scheme to contrast ourselves with, life has gone on as "normal" and people are nitpicking around the edges about fishing and other inconsequential elements. Plus ca change.
What is "increasingly bad" now that you didn't think would be bad last year?
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
I cannot see Boris agreeing to a Section 30 order. He saw what happened to Cameron.
Would Sturgeon go down the route of an "unauthorised" referendum? That's really quite a complicated one to game. It would go down very badly indeed with the EU and the Unionists would, of course, boycott it. But, equally, can she lead the tribe up to the top of hill only to lead them down again? I wonder if she has made a mistake.
Depends what you mean by "unauthorised".
The courts may declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a plebiscite but as with almost all UK referenda, it would have no legal power.
That seems the most likely ruling if it goes to the court, which means that unionists would be playing with fire by taking it to court.
If the Scots "win" at the Supreme Court the right to hold a referendum, then it will be much tougher to portray that as unauthorised or something to boycott. It will have been authorised by Hollyrood and the Supreme Court.
Brits believe in 'fair play'.
They can hold a referendum, authorised or not, it has no legal force and Boris and the UK government will ignore the result and Unionists will boycott it as the Spanish government ignored the Catalan independence referendum in 2017 which also had no legal force.
The question is then whether Sturgeon does what Salmond wants and declares UDI as the Catalan nationalist government did then (leading to the Spanish government arresting Catalan nationalist leaders). Sturgeon has said she would not go so far as to declare UDI
Spain has the (dis?)advantage of a written constiution that clearly sets out the arrangements...the UK's approach of whatever feels right on the day is perhaps the biggest issue.
No referendum result in the UK has any legal force unless the UK government is willing to allow the referendum, to implement the result and has a majority in the House of Commons to do so. Otherwise it is merely a glorified opinion poll.
Hence even the 2016 EU referendum result was not respected and not enforceable through the Commons after May lost her majority in 2017 until after Boris won a Tory majority in December 2019 and there will not be any respect given for any Scottish independence referendum certainly while we have a UK Tory government and a Tory majority in the Commons
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD
'Rycroft said the instinct to preserve the union was “not in the bloodstream of the UK state” in the same way concern for the territorial settlement was at the forefront of policymaking in countries such as Canada and Spain.'
But would that be the case if Independence won 90%+ of the vote on anything less than 55% turnout?
In which case it's easy to both allow the SNP to hold their referendum, it's just essential to ensure only those for independence turn out.
The Spanish may want to block independence at all costs, but if the Scots vote yes then English MPs would go swiftly from wanting to block Scottish Independence, to wanting to stand up for England on independence issues.
Tories would want to portray themselves as the best party to stand up to the SNP on the divorce, rather than preventing the divorce.
Scotland will stay in the UK if they're respected, not if they're prisoners.
Boris has made clear there will be no indyref2 for a generation allowed or respected by this UK government, the grievance if anything is in England which does not have its own Parliament unlike Scotland, Wales and NI
He also has nothing to lose from banning a recognised indyref2, ie keeping the UK together (if he lost Scotland he would have to resign) and the SNP threat to Labour and nothing to gain
Please, please, please stop
Refuse to allow an indyref2 for a generation and 0% chance of Scotland leaving the UK anytime soon.
In 2017 Spain's government refused to recognise a Catalan independence referendum or UDI declaration, 4 years later Catalonia remains in the UK.
Telling the Scots they're not allowed to decide their own future would build support for independence, not break it.
If the Scots don't want to be part of the UK anymore that's their choice. Why should they be held in the union against their will?
FET y de las Johnson.
etc.,etc.
Only a quarter of Scots want another independence referendum in the next year.
It is time to stand up to the Nationalists and this UK Tory government will do so. We must follow our conservative cousins in the PP in Spain in regards to Catalan Nationalists and show no concessions whatsover to Scottish Nationalists.
I have had enough of appeasement to the SNP from the likes of you!
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/only-quarter-of-scots-want-independence-referendum-in-next-year-says-poll-3165345
A single "l".
I did see there was a film crew out on the Dalmeny estate on Easter Monday, but I don't think the film activity in the area yet qualifies for a Hollywood name contrivance.
However, I expect cooler heads and minds will address the issue over the next months and years, just as the Queen decided to ignore your musings and ask us all to watch Philip's funeral on our televisions
Why can they just not invest in Gatsos ?
If the Government of the day has said clearly from the outset that whilst it is very interested in the result of the great Scottish opinion poll, as a reserved matter, no constitutional changes will follow the outcome, then it isn't difficult at all not to implement the result. It will however be very useful to the UK Government, because it will provide invaluable electoral data for when there is a legitimate second referendum, which will no doubt happen in the current decade. Quite how the Scottish Government sells the great indy jamboree it when there's shit all money, is a matter for them.
TS Elliott was right. April is the cruellest month. By a distance.
If the Queen wishes to allow the public to watch on television the private family funeral with only 30 guests on Saturday that is her affair, personally I would have had a televised State Memorial later in the year but that is up to them
@HYUFD is always banging on about how Westminster won't allow a "legal" referendum, etc.
I merely pointed out that if (although I note @DavidL thinks this is unlikely and he's much know knowledgeable on this than me) the courts hold that the Scottish Parliament does have the power to hold a referendum without Westminster's consent, the fact it wouldn't be "binding" is not really relevant because most UK referenda are non-binding.
And none of us really know what the consequences would be of an Independence victory in a non-binding referendum. It would certainly put >>some<< more pressure on Westminster.
Boris knows that
So he could become the "21st century Lord North" in any case.
P.S. nobody normal knows who "Lord North" is.
Also, if Brexit is such a compelling justification to renege on their "Once in a Generation" pledge, why did the polls move slightly towards No in the year after the EU referendum? Surely you'd have expected a significant move towards Yes if the Scots care so much about it? Leaving the EU was of course a big change in our national life, but it was a change for which almost 40% of Scots voted, and was clearly possible when the referendum was held.
And it is so good you have decided the Queens funeral arrangements are for her to decide, ignoring your musings
You do not seem to be able to take on board that your Scotland comments are ill judged, provocative, and not the way to address a genuine issue
In any case we'll see on the 6th May what the Scottish people really think.
If there is a Commission, it should be about addressing dissatisfaction and perceived imbalances within the Union, including all separatist movements, and its aim should be the creation of a new Union that is fit for the 21st century, rather than to try to eke out a bit more grudging acceptance of the status quo for another 10 years or so before these issues return.
Con 41 (-1)
Lab 34 (nc)
LD 6 (-1)
Grn 6 (nc)
SNP 5 (nc)
Ref 3 (nc)
Yougov continues to have Labour lower than other pollsters - and this poll also shows the Tories a fair bit off what two weekend polls were indicating. Greens again seem too high. Whilst Labour might derive some comfort from the fact that Yougov recorded the 13% Tory lead a month or so ago, that now does appear to have been an outlier.
It is Chamberlain who is remembered as the man who was the architect of the failed appeasement process, not Baldwin although Baldwin arguably did much of the work of appeasement beforehand.
Boris knows if he lost Scotland he would be humiliated and forced to resign as PM immediately, hence he will not allow any legal or recognised indyref2 under any circumstances and with a Tory majority of 80 he has the power to do so