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.
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...
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
Depends on your pollster. Harris has his approval at 61%, Ipsos at 55%, YouGov at 49% and Rasmussen at 50%. Disapproval numbers range anywhere from 36% to 48% in the latest polls
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
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.
He will leave it to Starmer or another future Labour PM, though a PM Starmer might allow indyref2, especially if reliant on SNP support, he would also be more likely to win it than BJ as he would make the UK more closely aligned to the SM + CU than BJ and also offer the Scots full devomax
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.
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.
If you say so Justin
I am actually suggesting that this poll is understating both main parties - and that it would be wrong to conclude that the Tory lead has fallen from 13% to 7% over the past month.
'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
In short, he will out personal interest ahead of national interest.
No surprise there.
For it is highly likely that IF the outcome of the Scottish election is decisive and the UK says no, the chances of an eventual separation will increase.
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
What saved me was Rich Baris the People's Pundit. He insisted there was no way Florida, Texas, Ohio and Iowa were going democrat, and that proved absolutely correct. He said Ohio was not even close and he was right. I made up some losses on these.
He also had some good insights into polling Americans and in particular why republicans are difficult for pollsters to reach.
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 ?
Musing on the international vaccine arguments through the Hitch Hiker lens.
Who is Arthur Dent, who is a Vl'Hurgh, who is a G'Gugvuntt, who is the small Dog, and who said the fatal statement, and how was it misperceived?
------------------ It is of course well known that careless talk costs lives, but the full scale of the problem is not always appreciated. For instance, at the very moment that Arthur said ``I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle,'' a freak wormhole opened up in the fabric of the space-time continuum and carried his words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant Galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle.
The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time.
A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'hurgs, resplendent in his black jewelled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvuntt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green sweet-smelling steam, and, with a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, challenged the vile creature to take back what it had said about his mother.
The creature stirred in his sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle drifted across the conference table.
Unfortunately, in the Vl'hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries.
Eventually of course, after their Galaxy had been decimated over a few thousand years, it was realized that the whole thing had been a ghastly mistake, and so the two opposing battle fleets settled their few remaining differences in order to launch a joint attack on our own Galaxy --- now positively identified as the source of the offending remark.
For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across --- which happened to be the Earth --- where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.
The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".
There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"
The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."
"However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."
"I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."
"Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."
"Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."
"The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
The briefing over the weekend that cabinet ministers fear Boris will be “forced into allowing a referendum if Sturgeon /Salmond win 2/3 of the seats” was interesting
They are moving the goal posts.
2/3 of Holyrood seats would be 85 for the SNP, Alba and Greens combined.
Even the best polls for the Nationalists do not give them that much at present, so on that basis Boris can still refuse to recognise any indyref2
Which is exactly why they are leaking it. It’s setting a very high bar for Boris to be forced into allowing a referendum
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Little sympathy for a former PM, in charge of the government which oversaw the current lobbying rules, falling foul of them.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
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...
We had roast lamb for Sunday roast yesterday
#justsaying
Training next doors' cats' not to dig up the veg I will be growing.
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Little sympathy for a former PM, in charge of the government which oversaw the current lobbying rules, falling foul of them.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
His wealth before the lobbying was estimated around £40m. I just don't get the mentality that is worth risking your reputation for an extra couple of million if you already have £40m, what impact would a bit of extra cash really make to his life?
Perhaps that is why I shall never get anywhere near that! I liked him as PM but very hard to have any sympathy or understanding on this.
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.
It's impossible to unravel all of the individual factors driving polling. What's key is the result of the actual elections in May and (if it happens) of the referendum. If that's a No, it's almost certainly the end of the matter for a long time for the reasons I've set out.
As for "reneging on the once in a generation pledge", this overstates things rather imo. Salmond had to say that and here's why.
If he hadn't, a Yes vote would have appeared irreversible whilst a No vote would not. For a certain category of those on the fence, specifically those people emotionally quite well disposed to Sindy but risk averse and anxious about making the leap, there would have been a slight temptation to say to themselves, "Hmm, ok, so I think what I'll do is vote No this time, wait and see how it looks when we get the next chance to look at it".
This would have steered in aggregate and on the margins towards a No. So the Yes side had to nail that. They had to level the playing field, ensure that both a Yes vote and a No vote were freighted with equal portentousness.
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.
You're lamenting the loss of a 'very nice ornamental sage'? Who are you, and what have you done with @contrarian?
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Little sympathy for a former PM, in charge of the government which oversaw the current lobbying rules, falling foul of them.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
His wealth before the lobbying was estimated around £40m. I just don't get the mentality that is worth risking your reputation for an extra couple of million if you already have £40m, what impact would a bit of extra cash really make to his life?
Perhaps that is why I shall never get anywhere near that! I liked him as PM but very hard to have any sympathy or understanding on this.
Look after the couples of millions and the tens of millions take care of themselves I always say!
The government is set to a launch an independent investigation into former prime minister David Cameron’s lobbying for the now-collapsed Greensill and the role of the scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill in government.
Details of the inquiry are set to be announced on Monday afternoon, the Guardian understands, amid growing calls from rules to be toughened. The decision to launch the inquiry, first reported by the Sun, was made by No 10 on Monday morning.
'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
Only if the "loss" is taken that way.
Except that David Lloyd George "lost" Ireland yet he is very highly remembered, as the PM that took us through to winning World War I and as a great statesman. People don't think about Ireland as David Lloyd George's legacy, they think of Irish independence as the choice of the Irish and Lloyd George remains with Churchill very highly rated.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
If Scotland goes independent its entirely possible for the PM to take that in his stride if he deals with it right.
The Met Office said record low April temperatures had been recorded in some parts of the UK overnight on Sunday and that temperatures would struggle to get into double figures at the start of the week.
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.
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.
If you say so Justin
I am actually suggesting that this poll is understating both main parties - and that it would be wrong to conclude that the Tory lead has fallen from 13% to 7% over the past month.
Every single poll since the 5th March has been consistent, taking margin for error into account, only with Tories 42 Labour 35/36. This poll confirms the figures as recent polls had suggested the possibility of a tiny Tory increase.
Labour will win Hartlepool if the Brexit voters split evenly; the Tories would scrape home of the Brexit party turns out in numbers for the Tories.
The government is set to a launch an independent investigation into former prime minister David Cameron’s lobbying for the now-collapsed Greensill and the role of the scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill in government.
Details of the inquiry are set to be announced on Monday afternoon, the Guardian understands, amid growing calls from rules to be toughened. The decision to launch the inquiry, first reported by the Sun, was made by No 10 on Monday morning.
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Little sympathy for a former PM, in charge of the government which oversaw the current lobbying rules, falling foul of them.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
His wealth before the lobbying was estimated around £40m. I just don't get the mentality that is worth risking your reputation for an extra couple of million if you already have £40m, what impact would a bit of extra cash really make to his life?
Perhaps that is why I shall never get anywhere near that! I liked him as PM but very hard to have any sympathy or understanding on this.
The issue, I understand, is that he was bored. Needed the buzz that for certain types can only come with "doing a bit of business".
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Little sympathy for a former PM, in charge of the government which oversaw the current lobbying rules, falling foul of them.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
His wealth before the lobbying was estimated around £40m. I just don't get the mentality that is worth risking your reputation for an extra couple of million if you already have £40m, what impact would a bit of extra cash really make to his life?
Perhaps that is why I shall never get anywhere near that! I liked him as PM but very hard to have any sympathy or understanding on this.
Indeed. I think you need an amount of narcissism to get that high in politics, and like Blair he suffered from spending his time at the very top while still only in his 40s.
AIUI most of his family's wealth is from his wife's side, even though she grew up on an estate in Sheffield
You still have to be very rich or lazy to turn down the sort of money offered by these large companies looking for experts in government - in many cases it's six figures per day.
No excuse for not knowing the rules though, he wrote them!
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Little sympathy for a former PM, in charge of the government which oversaw the current lobbying rules, falling foul of them.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
His wealth before the lobbying was estimated around £40m. I just don't get the mentality that is worth risking your reputation for an extra couple of million if you already have £40m, what impact would a bit of extra cash really make to his life?
Perhaps that is why I shall never get anywhere near that! I liked him as PM but very hard to have any sympathy or understanding on this.
Those fancy sheds and eco hot tubs are very expensive...
More seriously, not only does he have loads of cash, and many more ways of easily generating new income, Sam Cam is highly successful in her own right. She got a massive payout when the company she worked for got sold.
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 think there was an understanding about once in a generation. However I also think that Brexit changed the game, and it is not unreasonable to assert that. I agree with self determination in principle, and if enough Scots really want to be an independent nation then so be it. But its tricky to decide how many is enough. Is it a simple majority of those who vote? Or a majority of all registered voters? Do rUK have a say? Should ground rules be hammered out before the vote (such as national debt, currency etc).
'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
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
The government is set to a launch an independent investigation into former prime minister David Cameron’s lobbying for the now-collapsed Greensill and the role of the scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill in government.
Details of the inquiry are set to be announced on Monday afternoon, the Guardian understands, amid growing calls from rules to be toughened. The decision to launch the inquiry, first reported by the Sun, was made by No 10 on Monday morning.
There is only one way of governments being able to sit on a public and embarrassing story so as to say almost nothing and take no positions until everyone has forgotten about it and this is it. I wonder how many hundreds of times governments of every shade have been through this routine in the last 50 years? It is the world's most predictable story and they can do it in their sleep.
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
Just joking. You invited the charge so I thought it rude not to oblige.
On DeSantis, I'm effectively long of him via laying others, but what's your view on overtly backing him for the nomination? He's trading in the 7 to 8 range atm.
My NHS employee girlfriend has just been sent a 7-page booklet on how to follow the "national mourning guidelines".
Who spends their time coming up with this stuff?
The Union?
I am only mildly troubled to report that HM the Queen has indicated that QCs do not need to wear weepers for Prince Philip and indeed should not wear them when she passes. Our Dean has indicated in light of this that weepers are now in desuetude.
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.
It's impossible to unravel all of the individual factors driving polling. What's key is the result of the actual elections in May and (if it happens) of the referendum. If that's a No, it's almost certainly the end of the matter for a long time for the reasons I've set out.
As for "reneging on the once in a generation pledge", this overstates things rather imo. Salmond had to say that and here's why.
If he hadn't, a Yes vote would have appeared irreversible whilst a No vote would not. For a certain category of those on the fence, specifically those people emotionally quite well disposed to Sindy but risk averse and anxious about making the leap, there would have been a slight temptation to say to themselves, "Hmm, ok, so I think what I'll do is vote No this time, wait and see how it looks when we get the next chance to look at it".
This would have steered in aggregate and on the margins towards a No. So the Yes side had to nail that. They had to level the playing field, ensure that both a Yes vote and a No vote were freighted with equal portentousness.
Of course it's impossible to unravel all the factors driving polls. But for a "fundamental change in circumstances" surely you'd expect at least some kind of a shift in polling on this matter? I looked at the polls in the year before the EU referendum and No led by 3% on average. And in the year after, it led by 7%. I was very surprised by that result.
You're right that it was politically convenient for Salmond to make that pledge (saying that he "had" to overstates it). Doesn't mean the SNP shouldn't be held to it though.
The Met Office said record low April temperatures had been recorded in some parts of the UK overnight on Sunday and that temperatures would struggle to get into double figures at the start of the week.
Though it is important to remember that record breaking cold weather is weather, while record breaking hot weather is climate.
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.
You're lamenting the loss of a 'very nice ornamental sage'? Who are you, and what have you done with @contrarian?
Eliot's seasonal gardening tips have stood the test of time. Stick to lilac. Can't go wrong.
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.
It's impossible to unravel all of the individual factors driving polling. What's key is the result of the actual elections in May and (if it happens) of the referendum. If that's a No, it's almost certainly the end of the matter for a long time for the reasons I've set out.
As for "reneging on the once in a generation pledge", this overstates things rather imo. Salmond had to say that and here's why.
If he hadn't, a Yes vote would have appeared irreversible whilst a No vote would not. For a certain category of those on the fence, specifically those people emotionally quite well disposed to Sindy but risk averse and anxious about making the leap, there would have been a slight temptation to say to themselves, "Hmm, ok, so I think what I'll do is vote No this time, wait and see how it looks when we get the next chance to look at it".
This would have steered in aggregate and on the margins towards a No. So the Yes side had to nail that. They had to level the playing field, ensure that both a Yes vote and a No vote were freighted with equal portentousness.
Of course it's impossible to unravel all the factors driving polls. But for a "fundamental change in circumstances" surely you'd expect at least some kind of a shift in polling on this matter? I looked at the polls in the year before the EU referendum and No led by 3% on average. And in the year after, it led by 7%. I was very surprised by that result.
You're right that it was politically convenient for Salmond to make that pledge (saying that he "had" to overstates it). Doesn't mean the SNP shouldn't be held to it though.
It was not theirs to make or to keep. They were members of the SNP which generally makes them a particularly egregious member of that class of liars known as politicians. The choice is that of the Scottish people and if they vote for it they have made the choice whatever lies were told the last time.
I am a Unionist through and through but this is simply not a good point.
The Met Office said record low April temperatures had been recorded in some parts of the UK overnight on Sunday and that temperatures would struggle to get into double figures at the start of the week.
Though it is important to remember that record breaking cold weather is weather, while record breaking hot weather is climate.
Nah - its all grist to the mill, and became so the moment 'Global Warming' became 'Climate Change'...
The Met Office said record low April temperatures had been recorded in some parts of the UK overnight on Sunday and that temperatures would struggle to get into double figures at the start of the week.
Though it is important to remember that record breaking cold weather is weather, while record breaking hot weather is climate.
'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
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
As I said Sturgeon will hold a referendum if there is a Nationalist majority but the UK government will not recognise the result, a Unionist majority at Holyrood would mean however that Sturgeon could not even hold an unrecognised indyref2
More likely his image of self-worth is tied up with his being seen by others as 'important' - hard to feel important if you're doing nothing. Lobbying is the ultimate ego-stroker - it implies both your employer and the persons you are lobbying consider you important (and influential)
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Little sympathy for a former PM, in charge of the government which oversaw the current lobbying rules, falling foul of them.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
His wealth before the lobbying was estimated around £40m. I just don't get the mentality that is worth risking your reputation for an extra couple of million if you already have £40m, what impact would a bit of extra cash really make to his life?
Perhaps that is why I shall never get anywhere near that! I liked him as PM but very hard to have any sympathy or understanding on this.
The issue, I understand, is that he was bored. Needed the buzz that for certain types can only come with "doing a bit of business".
'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
Only if the "loss" is taken that way.
Except that David Lloyd George "lost" Ireland yet he is very highly remembered, as the PM that took us through to winning World War I and as a great statesman. People don't think about Ireland as David Lloyd George's legacy, they think of Irish independence as the choice of the Irish and Lloyd George remains with Churchill very highly rated.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
If Scotland goes independent its entirely possible for the PM to take that in his stride if he deals with it right.
Lloyd George did not lose all of Ireland, Northern Ireland remains in the UK. Lloyd George divided Ireland between Northern Ireland which remained in the UK and the new Irish Free State after having also fought a brutal war of independence with Irish Nationalists including the Black and Tans.
Juncker did not resign post Brexit but Brexit is what he is remembered for.
Cameron would have gone in 2014 had he lost Scotland, if Boris lost Scotland the Tory Party would force him out for having conceded a legal referendum to the SNP and lost it.
They would then make Sunak PM to take as hard headed a line with the SNP as possible in Scexit negotiations
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
'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
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
As I said Sturgeon will hold a referendum if there is a Nationalist majority but the UK government will not recognise the result, a Unionist majority at Holyrood would mean however that Sturgeon could not even hold an unrecognised indyref2
Nicola will seek a sec 30 agreement and the HOC will need to respond with common sense and cool heads unlike the repetitive nonsense you parrot
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
A good point, the original EEC founding members were France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the UK did not join until later and was not a founder member of the EEC/EU.
Scotland however was united with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of GB which then became the UK of GB and Ireland when Ireland joined in 1801, losing Scotland would be to lose one of the core original founder members of the UK
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
The government is set to a launch an independent investigation into former prime minister David Cameron’s lobbying for the now-collapsed Greensill and the role of the scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill in government.
Details of the inquiry are set to be announced on Monday afternoon, the Guardian understands, amid growing calls from rules to be toughened. The decision to launch the inquiry, first reported by the Sun, was made by No 10 on Monday morning.
There is only one way of governments being able to sit on a public and embarrassing story so as to say almost nothing and take no positions until everyone has forgotten about it and this is it. I wonder how many hundreds of times governments of every shade have been through this routine in the last 50 years? It is the world's most predictable story and they can do it in their sleep.
Though Cameron has come out of this smelling of bad sex, he was not the only politician who clambered into bed with Gupta.
It was a big bed. There were plenty of Welsh & Scottish politicians in the bed, too.
Like our old Friend of Darkness, and former First Minister, Carwyn Jones:
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Was there not also a US police officer shot dead in cold blood at a traffic stop the other day?
'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
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
As I said Sturgeon will hold a referendum if there is a Nationalist majority but the UK government will not recognise the result, a Unionist majority at Holyrood would mean however that Sturgeon could not even hold an unrecognised indyref2
Nicola will seek a sec 30 agreement and the HOC will need to respond with common sense and cool heads unlike the repetitive nonsense you parrot
The UK government line is clear, the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation vote
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Don't you think it is a bit early to act as judge and jury? the Chauvin trial is throwing up evidence that at least shows these incidents can be much more complex than first meet the eye.
Amazing! Freedom at last. After all this waiting, the months of anticipation, the longing, I've just been to the zoo.
Did you say to the animals, "Now I know how you feel"?
I never really understand people talking to animals. Dog owners in particular.
My late dad's dog did learn the word "walk" in fairness but he never got the hang of "Chinese cooking implement".
You'd be amazed how much a clever dog appears to understand. If I see my dog hanging round by the door I can say to him "If you want to go out just ring the bell" and he'll ring the bell I have attached to the bottom of the door. Sometimes he'll even do it unprompted. He's probably only understanding "ring the bell", but he knows lots of similar phrases such as "where's the ball", "go for a walk", "dont go too far", "to the park", "time for dinner", etc. If he's not too excited, he knows his "left" from "right". And they pick up a lot from body language and tone of voice even if they're not interpreting the words directly.
'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
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
As I said Sturgeon will hold a referendum if there is a Nationalist majority but the UK government will not recognise the result, a Unionist majority at Holyrood would mean however that Sturgeon could not even hold an unrecognised indyref2
Nicola will seek a sec 30 agreement and the HOC will need to respond with common sense and cool heads unlike the repetitive nonsense you parrot
The UK government line is clear, the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation vote
No its not. The UK government line is clear, vote Tory to stop the SNP holding a referendum. 🙄
If 2014 was once in a generation, then why vote SCon now?
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Was there not also a US police officer shot dead in cold blood at a traffic stop the other day?
I am sure it happens. I am sure part of the reason for the police's rapid escalation is that they are scared. But this approach of immediately drawing guns and shooting at first flimsily defensible opportunity only escalates the overall situation - it makes the law-abiding public less willing to cooperate with and obey the police - because they are scared, which means that the police then are scared that the scared member of the public is dangerous, so they escalate to a level that only confirms worst fears.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
It is unbelievable and with no end in sight
The campaign to defund the police always sounds incredibly radical and lefty but what its proponents contend is that the police departments in much of the US are so riddled with racism, corruption and plain stupidity that reform is simply not going to work and all that can be done is to start again with new structures, new officers and, hopefully, new attitudes.
Episodes like this make you wonder is this is such a daft idea.
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Was there not also a US police officer shot dead in cold blood at a traffic stop the other day?
I am sure it happens. I am sure part of the reason for the police's rapid escalation is that they are scared. But this approach of immediately drawing guns and shooting at first flimsily defensible opportunity only escalates the overall situation - it makes the law-abiding public less willing to cooperate with and obey the police - because they are scared, which means that the police then are scared that the scared member of the public is dangerous, so they escalate to a level that only confirms worst fears.
Something fundamental needs to change
Its why our Police wisely don't wish to be armed. 👍
'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
So there doesn't actually need to be a unionist majority in the May Holyrood elections to stop IndyRef2?
As I said Sturgeon will hold a referendum if there is a Nationalist majority but the UK government will not recognise the result, a Unionist majority at Holyrood would mean however that Sturgeon could not even hold an unrecognised indyref2
Nicola will seek a sec 30 agreement and the HOC will need to respond with common sense and cool heads unlike the repetitive nonsense you parrot
The UK government line is clear, the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation vote
No its not. The UK government line is clear, vote Tory to stop the SNP holding a referendum. 🙄
If 2014 was once in a generation, then why vote SCon now?
Yes, a Unionist majority and SCon gains from the SNP in May stops even Sturgeon trying for an indyref2.
However the UK government has made clear it will refuse to allow or recognise the result of an indyref2 even if there is a Nationalist majority in May at Holyrood and Sturgeon then holds a referendum
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Has it come to that or actually always been like that but black victims are now believed thanks to mobile video footage?
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
This might be why the police in the US are even more on edge than usual when it comes to traffic stops....
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Has it come to that or actually always been like that but black victims are now believed thanks to mobile video footage?
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.
Yes, unsurprisingly the PB New Normal Experts have come unstuck yet again.
I'm minded of the likes of @gealbhan assuring us that most people would be hesitant to return to normal life, and several PBers solemnly agreeing with a poster who said "few, if any, pubs will reopen on 12 April".
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Was there not also a US police officer shot dead in cold blood at a traffic stop the other day?
I am sure it happens. I am sure part of the reason for the police's rapid escalation is that they are scared. But this approach of immediately drawing guns and shooting at first flimsily defensible opportunity only escalates the overall situation - it makes the law-abiding public less willing to cooperate with and obey the police - because they are scared, which means that the police then are scared that the scared member of the public is dangerous, so they escalate to a level that only confirms worst fears.
Something fundamental needs to change
In effect, a member of the public in the US is expected to manage the emotional response of the police officers who have stopped them & is held to be responsible for whatever happens to them, up to and including being shot because they did exactly what the police asked of them.
That this kind of behaviour is regarded as normal is emblematic of just how broken governance of the police in the US is.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Boris's history in a future independent England will be as the the man who won the European Union referendum and then won England's exit from Europe following his 2019 election victory.
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
No, if Scotland went independent after a 314 year union with England on Boris' watch breaking up the UK in the process he would be remembered for that far more than the UK leaving a mere 47 year union with the EEC/EU which still saw the EU stay intact
I despair of the US police at the moment. Another report of a black man fatally shot at a traffic stop in Minneapolis suburbs, as Virginia launches a probe into a traffic stop in which a black US Army lieutenant IN UNIFORM was pulled over because the temporary plate on his brand new SUV was not visible to the police (it was visible). This stop resulted in the police drawing guns on the Lieutenant and pepper spraying directly into his eyes extensively. Fortunately, the Lieutenant did not stop immediately in the dark road, but drove to a well-lit gas station to stop, and filmed the whole thing on his phone because he was scared for his life.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Was there not also a US police officer shot dead in cold blood at a traffic stop the other day?
I am sure it happens. I am sure part of the reason for the police's rapid escalation is that they are scared. But this approach of immediately drawing guns and shooting at first flimsily defensible opportunity only escalates the overall situation - it makes the law-abiding public less willing to cooperate with and obey the police - because they are scared, which means that the police then are scared that the scared member of the public is dangerous, so they escalate to a level that only confirms worst fears.
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.
Great news for the Democrats.
PB's resident Anti Tipster has spoken.
See also:
"Virginia is in play"
"Fox was wrong to call Arizona and will have to retract it"
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
No disaster is so profound as to require an EU resignation.
As has been amply demonstrated.
Bit of a difference though.
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
Not really.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
It might do but it would still get rid of Boris first so he takes the blame for allowing a legal indyref2 and then losing it
Telling the Scots that the clown would resign if they get indy might not be wise? Best keep it from your Epping militiamen, for the time being, eh?
If he resigns or not he would be forced out by Tory MPs if he allowed a legal indyref2 and then lost Scotland, that would be inevitable
Yes, but your militia may not share your incisive grasp of the political inevitabilities
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.
Yes, unsurprisingly the PB New Normal Experts have come unstuck yet again.
I'm minded of the likes of @gealbhan assuring us that most people would be hesitant to return to normal life, and several PBers solemnly agreeing with a poster who said "few, if any, pubs will reopen on 12 April".
To be fair my most local pub, which is a fairly expensive countrysidey gastro type pub has deciding not to bother opening until May, much to my annoyance.
The other stabby stabby pub in the village has decided to open though.
This might be why the police in the US are even more on edge than usual when it comes to traffic stops....
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
Yes, the smart thing is not so much that our cops are not armed, per @Philip_Thompson , but that we are not so every dispute takes place on a completely different level.
Amazing! Freedom at last. After all this waiting, the months of anticipation, the longing, I've just been to the zoo.
Did you say to the animals, "Now I know how you feel"?
I never really understand people talking to animals. Dog owners in particular.
My late dad's dog did learn the word "walk" in fairness but he never got the hang of "Chinese cooking implement".
You tried to teach him that? To accomplish wok?
No, we used it as an alternative so we could debate who was taking the mutt out without him racing around the kitchen with his lead in his mouth.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that. But ‘who’s taking the dog for a Chinese cooking implement?’ sounds like something that would happen in Wuhan’s wet market.
Comments
#justsaying
First home nation to pass 50% of population
An independent review into David Cameron is to take place but no further details yet available
Downing Street has also confirmed an investigation is to be launched into Greensill Capital
No surprise there.
For it is highly likely that IF the outcome of the Scottish election is decisive and the UK says no, the chances of an eventual separation will increase.
He also had some good insights into polling Americans and in particular why republicans are difficult for pollsters to reach.
Who is Arthur Dent, who is a Vl'Hurgh, who is a G'Gugvuntt, who is the small Dog, and who said the fatal statement, and how was it misperceived?
------------------
It is of course well known that careless talk costs lives, but the full scale of the problem is not always appreciated.
For instance, at the very moment that Arthur said ``I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle,'' a freak wormhole opened up in the fabric of the space-time continuum and carried his words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant Galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle.
The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time.
A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'hurgs, resplendent in his black jewelled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvuntt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green sweet-smelling steam, and, with a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, challenged the vile creature to take back what it had said about his mother.
The creature stirred in his sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle drifted across the conference table.
Unfortunately, in the Vl'hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries.
Eventually of course, after their Galaxy had been decimated over a few thousand years, it was realized that the whole thing had been a ghastly mistake, and so the two opposing battle fleets settled their few remaining differences in order to launch a joint attack on our own Galaxy --- now positively identified as the source of the offending remark.
For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across --- which happened to be the Earth --- where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.
He knew damn well that there are official channels by which companies make representations to government, and that getting hold of a minister's mobile phone number to message him isn't the correct way.
Super Soaker proving useful.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1381573570803998720
Perhaps that is why I shall never get anywhere near that! I liked him as PM but very hard to have any sympathy or understanding on this.
Still, better off missing the ones who just have to be there on the first day...
Angela Merkel confirms Germany's current infection rate is too high and wants a significant increase in vaccine production
Maybe it would have been a good idea not to impose UVDL on the EU then
As for "reneging on the once in a generation pledge", this overstates things rather imo. Salmond had to say that and here's why.
If he hadn't, a Yes vote would have appeared irreversible whilst a No vote would not. For a certain category of those on the fence, specifically those people emotionally quite well disposed to Sindy but risk averse and anxious about making the leap, there would have been a slight temptation to say to themselves, "Hmm, ok, so I think what I'll do is vote No this time, wait and see how it looks when we get the next chance to look at it".
This would have steered in aggregate and on the margins towards a No. So the Yes side had to nail that. They had to level the playing field, ensure that both a Yes vote and a No vote were freighted with equal portentousness.
Details of the inquiry are set to be announced on Monday afternoon, the Guardian understands, amid growing calls from rules to be toughened. The decision to launch the inquiry, first reported by the Sun, was made by No 10 on Monday morning.
Except that David Lloyd George "lost" Ireland yet he is very highly remembered, as the PM that took us through to winning World War I and as a great statesman. People don't think about Ireland as David Lloyd George's legacy, they think of Irish independence as the choice of the Irish and Lloyd George remains with Churchill very highly rated.
When Britain voted for Brexit Juncker didn't resign.
If Scotland goes independent its entirely possible for the PM to take that in his stride if he deals with it right.
Labour will win Hartlepool if the Brexit voters split evenly; the Tories would scrape home of the Brexit party turns out in numbers for the Tories.
I have worked in a bar; I know how it works.
However my comment was tongue in cheek of course.
As has been amply demonstrated.
AIUI most of his family's wealth is from his wife's side, even though she grew up on an estate in Sheffield
You still have to be very rich or lazy to turn down the sort of money offered by these large companies looking for experts in government - in many cases it's six figures per day.
No excuse for not knowing the rules though, he wrote them!
More seriously, not only does he have loads of cash, and many more ways of easily generating new income, Sam Cam is highly successful in her own right. She got a massive payout when the company she worked for got sold.
Who spends their time coming up with this stuff?
On DeSantis, I'm effectively long of him via laying others, but what's your view on overtly backing him for the nomination? He's trading in the 7 to 8 range atm.
Tradition playing like the Spurs defence here.
You're right that it was politically convenient for Salmond to make that pledge (saying that he "had" to overstates it). Doesn't mean the SNP shouldn't be held to it though.
I am a Unionist through and through but this is simply not a good point.
Or something like that...
What times.
Actually I've been nowhere but there are a few hardy souls wrapped up against the cold at the local pub.
(I thank you!)
Juncker did not resign post Brexit but Brexit is what he is remembered for.
Cameron would have gone in 2014 had he lost Scotland, if Boris lost Scotland the Tory Party would force him out for having conceded a legal referendum to the SNP and lost it.
They would then make Sunak PM to take as hard headed a line with the SNP as possible in Scexit negotiations
I'm sure the EU would have been happier had the UK stayed in, but it's not a fundamental part of their existence. The reason they didn't offer Dave C more was that they're not that into us... Which is their (sovereign) decision.
Maintenance of the United Kingdom is a fundamental point of the Conservative and Unionist Party. For Scotland to leave the UK in the Conservative's watch would be a resigning matter.
WTF has this country come to where a US Army Lieutenant in uniform has to worry about the police shooting him for a (non-existent) traffic violation?
Scotland however was united with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of GB which then became the UK of GB and Ireland when Ireland joined in 1801, losing Scotland would be to lose one of the core original founder members of the UK
Maybe it will change when they get released?
My late dad's dog did learn the word "walk" in fairness but he never got the hang of "Chinese cooking implement".
It was a big bed. There were plenty of Welsh & Scottish politicians in the bed, too.
Like our old Friend of Darkness, and former First Minister, Carwyn Jones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-54876651
Certainly an inquiry is needed to investigate the hook-ups between the various partners in the Gupta bed.
I expect, though, that the inquiry will merely provide the barest measures of the perimeter and surface area of the bed.
Quite frankly Scottish independence has been decades in the making. When it happens, it happens, its their choice.
The Tories will take it in their stride and adapt, seeking to turn it to their advantage. Its what the party does.
If 2014 was once in a generation, then why vote SCon now?
Something fundamental needs to change
Over the weekend, lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56716708
Episodes like this make you wonder is this is such a daft idea.
However the UK government has made clear it will refuse to allow or recognise the result of an indyref2 even if there is a Nationalist majority in May at Holyrood and Sturgeon then holds a referendum
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9461623/Sir-Keir-Starmer-U-turn-support-PMs-vaccine-passports.html
Starmer fence sitting summed up in this video..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5Y0yUwau4
That neighbouring Scotland went independent following decades and multiple referenda will be a footnote in history, not what he's known for.
Moment drug dealer executes American cop at side of road after slyly getting out of his pick-up with an AR-15 during traffic stop - before 40-mile chase that ended in a hail of police bullets
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9458851/Shocking-moment-drug-dealer-39-jumps-truck-shoots-dead-New-Mexico-cop.html
I'm minded of the likes of @gealbhan assuring us that most people would be hesitant to return to normal life, and several PBers solemnly agreeing with a poster who said "few, if any, pubs will reopen on 12 April".
That this kind of behaviour is regarded as normal is emblematic of just how broken governance of the police in the US is.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9460269/Gov-calls-probe-traffic-stop-Black-Army-officer.html
2nd link is of a policeman murdered at traffic stop
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-mexico-police-officer-fatally-shot-in-the-head-during-routine-stop-in-february-video-shows
PB's resident Anti Tipster has spoken.
See also:
"Virginia is in play"
"Fox was wrong to call Arizona and will have to retract it"
"Trump will win"
The other stabby stabby pub in the village has decided to open though.